Military Review

About the fleet that we need

326

Recently, on the electronic pages of "VO", a serious "battle" has been played out on the topic of the future of the Russian naval fleet... The distinguished authors R. Skomorokhov and A. Vorontsov entered the discussion, on the one hand (“Does Russia need a strong fleet"), And no less respected by me A. Timokhin - on the other"A blow against reality or about the fleet, Tu-160 and the cost of human error».


Not wanting to become a third opposing party, I will nevertheless allow myself to speak on the merits of the issue: to state my point of view, which, perhaps, will be somewhat different from the positions of the above-mentioned respected authors.

So what kind of fleet do we need?

On the tasks of the Russian Navy


This is quite clearly and clearly stated in the Decree of the President of the Russian Federation of July 20, 2017 No. 327 "On the approval of the Fundamentals of the State Policy of the Russian Federation in the field of naval activities for the period up to 2030" (hereinafter referred to as the "Decree"). Clause 8 of the first section of the document defines the status of our fleet:

“The Russian Federation still retains the status of a great maritime power, the maritime potential of which ensures the realization and protection of its national interests in any area of ​​the World Ocean, is an important factor in international stability and strategic deterrence and allows an independent national maritime policy to be pursued as an equal participant in international maritime activities. ".

In other words, the country's leadership, at least at the level of setting common goals, wants to have a fleet that will retain the status of a great maritime power for the Russian Federation.

Of course, with the implementation of these good undertakings in our country, according to Mr. Chernomyrdin's immortal statement:

"I wanted the best, but it turned out as always",

but this is not the point now.

And about the answer to a simple question:

Can the "coastal fleet", for which many authors and readers of "VO" stand up, meet the wishes of our leadership?

The answer is an unequivocal no. And that's why.

The same “Decree” clearly defines the purpose of our Navy:

"The Navy as a service of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation is intended to ensure the protection of the national interests of the Russian Federation and its allies in the World Ocean by military methods, to maintain military-political stability at the global and regional levels, and to repel aggression against the Russian Federation from ocean and sea directions." ...

According to the "Decree", the main goals of the state policy in the field of naval activities are:

a) maintaining the naval potential at a level that ensures guaranteed deterrence of aggression against the Russian Federation from ocean and sea directions and the possibility of inflicting unacceptable damage to any potential adversary;

b) maintaining strategic stability and international law and order in the World Ocean, including through the effective use of the Navy as one of the main instruments of the foreign policy of the Russian Federation;

c) ensuring favorable conditions for the development and rational use of the natural resources of the World Ocean in the interests of the country's socio-economic development.

In essence, this already makes the duality of the tasks assigned to the Russian Navy quite obvious.

On the one hand, it is a recognition of the need to have highly effective naval strategic nuclear forces (NSNF), which will provide guaranteed nuclear retaliation to anyone who encroaches on it.

On the other hand, the leadership of the Russian Federation considers it imperative to have sufficiently powerful non-strategic general-purpose forces capable of operating in the World Ocean for a long time.

This is directly indicated by a number of strategic requirements for the Navy (listed in the section of the same name of the "Decree"), including:

1) Ability to quickly and covertly deploy forces (troops) in remote areas of the World Ocean;

2) The ability to successfully confront an enemy with a high-tech naval potential (including a high-precision weapon), with the groupings of its naval forces in the near, distant sea zones and oceanic regions;

3) Ability for long-term autonomous activity, including independent replenishment of supplies of material and technical means and weapons in remote regions of the World Ocean from logistics support vessels of new projects.

In general, the "Decree" quite unequivocally divides strategic deterrence into nuclear and non-nuclear. At the same time, endowing general-purpose naval groupings with non-nuclear deterrent functionality is one of the priorities for the development of the fleet (point "b" of Article 47 of the "Decree").

Finally, the "Decree" directly sets the task of a permanent naval presence

"In the Mediterranean Sea and other strategically important areas of the World Ocean, including in the areas where the main sea transport communications pass."

You can agree with these tasks or not. And one can argue about whether they are achievable given the plight of the domestic economy. But nevertheless, I urge you to take into account that the above tasks are not my personal fantasies, but the position of the leadership of our country. Moreover, it is stated in the document from 2017.

That is, after the crisis of 2014, when it was quite obvious that the plans of the GPV 2011–2020 failed miserably, including due to the impossibility of financing them by the budget of the Russian Federation.

Strategic nuclear deterrence


In the coming decades, it will, of course, be based on the Project 955 and 955A Strategic Missile Submarine Cruisers (SSBNs), of which there are now 10 units in the fleet and at different stages of construction (including preparation for it).


Other ships of this type are likely to be built. And also (in addition to them) also specialized carriers of "Poseidons" - "Belgorod" and Co. We will not discuss the usefulness of the latter in matters of strategic nuclear deterrence, but note that SSBNs are transferred to two fleets, the North and the Pacific.

What do we need to ensure the operation of SSBNs?

The main threats to our SSBNs are:

1) minefields deployed at the exit of our naval bases;
2) multipurpose nuclear (and non-nuclear) submarines;
3) anti-submarine aviation.

As for surface ships, they, of course, also pose a serious potential threat to SSBNs. But only in the distant sea and ocean zones.

Of course, today the capabilities of the Russian Navy are infinitely far from the desired ones. But nevertheless, an attempt to deploy a "network" of US surface ships in our near sea zone, in the immediate vicinity of land-based airfields and coastal missile systems, would be an extremely unreasonable form of mass suicide for them. And so it should remain in the future. In addition, in the north, the actions of the surface forces of our "sworn friends" are strongly hindered by nature itself.

Therefore, it is quite obvious that the combat stability of our NSNF in this case can be ensured by the formation of A2 / AD zones in the areas of the SSBN base. That is, our Navy should be able to provide zones in which enemy submarines and ASW aircraft will be detected and destroyed with a probability that excludes the effective "hunt" of these submarines and aircraft for our SSBNs. At the same time, the size of these zones should be large enough to prevent our opponents from having a chance with acceptable admissibility to “watch for” and intercept our SSBNs outside its borders.

From the above, it does not at all follow that our SSBNs should occupy positions exclusively in areas A2 / AD. Simply with their help, the task of bringing the most modern SSBNs into the ocean, capable of operating in it, is being solved. In other words, provided that the technical capabilities and skills of the crews of our ships will allow them to get lost in the ocean. Older submarines, which would be too risky to send to the ocean, can, of course, remain in relative safety of the A2 / AD. And they will be ready to strike retaliation right from there.

From my point of view, the Barents and Okhotsk Seas should become such areas for us.

In addition, it is necessary to provide a significant area A2 / AD around Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky. But here, of course, other opinions are possible.

How to secure A2 / AD?


This requires quite a bit.

First of all, it is a system of naval reconnaissance and target designation, which makes it possible to identify enemy submarines and aircraft, and at the same time, of course, his surface ships. Accordingly, we are talking about the means of monitoring the air, surface and underwater situation.

To be more specific, air control is provided by radar, radio-technical and optical-electronic reconnaissance. What are needed for:

1. Orbital constellation (appropriate designation).

2. Coastal radar stations (including over-the-horizon) and RTR (electronic intelligence).

3. Manned and unmanned aerial vehicles, including AWACS and RTR aircraft.

Unfortunately, many today are inclined to exaggerate the importance of satellites and ZGRLS, believing that they will be completely sufficient for detecting and classifying the enemy, as well as for developing target designation. But this, alas, is not so.

Satellites and ZGRLS are, of course, very important components of the maritime reconnaissance and target designation system. But on their own they cannot solve the entire spectrum of tasks in the field of surface and air situation control.

In reality, the capabilities of our satellite constellation are insufficient. The provision of ZGRLS is at a more or less acceptable level. But in the part of AWACS and RTR aircraft, as well as reconnaissance drones for operations over the sea, there is a large black hole.

To control the underwater situation, we need:

1. Satellites capable of searching for submarines by the heat wake (and, possibly, by other methods).

2. PLO airplanes and helicopters armed with specialized means of searching for submarines.

3. Networks of stationary hydrophones and other passive and active means of detecting the enemy. It is also possible to use mobile means, such as specialized hydroacoustic reconnaissance ships.

What do we have?

The satellite constellation, as mentioned earlier, is insufficient. The most modern "air" forces of PLO - Il-38N in their capabilities are very much inferior to modern PLO aircraft of NATO countries. And there are deliberately insufficient quantities.

The rest - Il-38, Tu-142, Ka-27, are outdated, up to a complete loss of combat effectiveness. The current Ka-27 modernization program, alas, can hardly solve this problem. The deployment of a network of active and passive hydroacoustic stations has been disrupted.

Of course, warships are also integrated into the naval reconnaissance and target designation system.

Fleet and Aviation for A2 / AD


The general naval forces to form A2 / AD shall consist of:

1. Highly effective mine-sweeping forces capable of bringing our surface and submarine ships out of the naval base "to clean water."

2. PLO corvettes for operations in the coastal and near sea zones (0-500 miles from the coastline).

3. Multipurpose submarines to counter multipurpose nuclear and non-nuclear submarines of a potential enemy.

4. Naval aviation for solving the problems of anti-aircraft defense, gaining air supremacy and destroying enemy surface forces.

On the first point, I think, the dear reader will be clear without my comments.

I will only say that mine-sweeping operations in the Russian Navy are in a terrible state, which does not allow fighting modern types of foreign mines.


The respected M. Klimov described the problem many times and in detail. And I see no reason to repeat myself. If some minesweepers are still under construction ("Alexandrite"), then they simply do not have modern and effective means of mine detection and neutralization, which is a gaping gap in our naval defense.

On the second point, it is also more or less clear.

In the near sea zone, we are threatened, first of all, by enemy aircraft and submarines. It is simply impossible to create a corvette capable of repelling an air raid by specialized naval aviation on its own. This is difficult even for ships of much larger displacement.

Likewise, there is no point in trying to stuff the corvette with anti-ship missiles up to and including the Zircon. The task of fighting the enemy's surface forces is not his target. It should be dealt with by aviation. Therefore, in the part of air defense, the emphasis should be on the destruction of guided munitions. And the main specialization of the corvette is to make anti-submarine warfare.

In other words, the corvette should be a cheap and massive ship, focused primarily on anti-submarine activities. We, alas, do everything the other way around, trying to shove the frigate's weapons into the corvette. Well, we get a corvette at the price of a frigate, of course. That reduces its basic (PLO) capabilities. And it makes impossible the massive construction of these very necessary ships of the Russian Navy.

On the third point, it is already more difficult.

As part of the creation of A2 / AD, we need, again, numerous submarines capable of fighting the latest nuclear and non-nuclear foreign ships.

What should they be?

It is impossible to answer this question in a nutshell. Of course, some of the requirements are obvious. We need specialized ships to deal with enemy submarines. What will require:

1. Such a ratio of the capabilities of the SAC and the visibility of our ship, which will allow us to detect modern and advanced enemy submarines before they spot our ship. The usefulness of this is obvious - the one who detects the enemy first gets a great advantage in battle.

2. Effective complexes of torpedo and anti-torpedo weapons. It is not enough to reveal the enemy, it must also be destroyed. And at the same time not to be liquidated.

3. High speed low noise running. The main task of such multipurpose submarines is to search for an underwater enemy in the A2 / AD zones. And the higher the speed, the more space the submarine can “scan” in a day.

4. Reasonable price, allowing to deploy large-scale construction of such submarines.

Once again, I would like to draw the attention of the dear reader - we are not talking about submarines for escorting our SSBNs. This refers to submarines capable of searching for and destroying enemy submarines in specified areas.

Personally, I (at one time) believed that the creation of a PLAT (nuclear torpedo submarine), in its ideology close to our "Shchuke-B", would be optimal for solving such problems. Or rather, even to the British "Astute". That is, not more than 7 thousand surface and 8,5 thousand underwater displacement (maximum, but better - less).

But other options can also be considered.

For example, the French "baby" "Barracuda", with its underwater displacement of about 5300 tons.


Or the proposal of the respected M. Klimov, which boils down to creating a nuclear ship based on diesel-electric submarines of project 677. In essence, the “cost / efficiency” criterion is the determining factor here.

Does our fleet need non-nuclear submarines?

Generally speaking, yes. Needed.

Since they are quite suitable for operations in the Black and Baltic Seas. Nuclear ships are useless there.

It is also possible that a certain number of such submarines will be in demand for A2 / AD, formed by the Northern and Pacific Fleets within the near sea zone. But here, again, one should look from the “cost / efficiency” position in relation to the tasks being solved.

For example, if we want to patrol a certain coastal sea space with an area of ​​"X" and this requires either "Y" pieces of boards, or "Z" pieces of diesel-electric submarines with air-independent installations or lithium-ion batteries. And at the same time "Z" pieces of diesel-electric submarines will cost less than "Y" PLATS. Why not?

There is already a clean economy. Taking into account the number of crews, the cost of life cycles, the required infrastructure, etc. etc.

What do we have at the moment?

We do not build or develop PLATs at all. Instead, we create universal "mastodons" of the 885M project.


I do not at all consider Yaseni-M to be bad ships.

And they certainly have their own tactical niche. But for solving A2 / AD problems, they are completely sub-optimal. Due to the extremely high cost.

That is, we simply cannot build a sufficient number of Ash-Ms to form A2 / AD.

And if we also take into account that equipping them with a propeller instead of a water cannon does not allow relying on a high speed of low noise, and also the disastrous situation in terms of anti-submarine weapons (problems with both torpedoes and anti-torpedo protection, lack of experience in ice torpedo firing, etc.) etc., again, all this is perfectly described by M. Klimov), then it becomes quite sad.

With diesel-electric submarines, the situation is very bad.

We developed and developed VNEU, but we never did. And it is unclear whether we will be able to create an air-independent installation in the foreseeable future.

A possible alternative could be the transition to high-capacity batteries (lithium-ion batteries, that is, LIAB). But - only on condition of increasing the reliability of these same LIAB, which today can explode at the most inopportune moment. Which is completely unacceptable for a warship in general and for a submarine in particular.

But even with diesel-electric submarines, not all is well.

The ship of the new generation ("Lada") did not "take off" even without any VNEU and LIAB.

As a result, obsolete Project 636.3 Varshavyanka ships are going to the fleet. Yes, they were once called "black holes". Yes, until about the beginning of the 90s, their "progenitor" (Project 877 "Halibut") really discovered the enemy "Elks" first. But 30 years have passed since then.

Of course, project 636.3 has been seriously improved. But, for example, such an important means of searching for the enemy as a towed GAS was not "delivered" to it. And the problems with torpedo armament and PTZ have already been mentioned above.

In other words, there is great doubt that the 636.3 is capable of effectively dealing with the latest enemy submarines right now.

But progress does not stand still ...

Aviation…

Everything is very complicated here.

That is, everything is clear about the tasks. Apart from the PLO tasks mentioned above, in A2 / AD zones we must be able to:

1. Establish zonal air supremacy.

This is obviously necessary to ensure the actions of our own anti-aircraft defense aircraft, prevent flights of enemy aircraft of a similar purpose, cover the elements of the naval reconnaissance and target designation system, which are our own aircraft and UAVs of AWACS and RTR, as well as to protect our corvettes from attacks by enemy strike aircraft.

2. Destroy enemy surface ships and their formations, including those outside the A2 / AD zones.

The difficulties here are as follows. The fact is that the American AUG does not have to break into the same Okhotsk Sea in order to solve the problem of destroying our aviation over its waters. AUG or AUS may well maneuver even hundreds of kilometers from the Big (or Small) Kuril ridge.

The US Navy's deck-based AWACS and RTR aircraft are quite capable of being on duty even 600 km from the "home deck" and intercepting our aircraft (and the same Il-38N, for example) with the same Super Hornets. It is also necessary to take into account the capabilities of the Japanese Air Force based in Hokkaido.

To a certain extent, the neutralization of this enemy aircraft can be solved by deploying strong Russian air formations in Kamchatka and Sakhalin. But here the well-known difficulties begin.

Stationary airfields both there and there will become, perhaps, the primary targets of the Japanese Air Force and the American Navy. And it will be so difficult to withstand the blow there.

In addition, the length of the Great Kuril Ridge is about 1200 km. And it will be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to intercept enemy multifunctional fighters over such a distance, simply because of the long flight time.

Build a "full profile" airbase for at least a regiment of fighters with AWACS and RTR aircraft on the Kuril Islands?

In principle, a possible case. But it will cost a lot. And, again, the vulnerability of such a base to cruise missiles will be very high. And for such a goal, the US Navy will not be stingy.

That is why, according to the author, an aircraft carrier would be very useful to us at the Pacific Fleet.

Our "mobile airfield", maneuvering somewhere in the same Okhotsk, will not be so easy to find. And the presence of a "deck at sea" will greatly facilitate and simplify reconnaissance by RTR and AWACS aircraft. It will allow more active use of PLO helicopters. And, of course, intercepting American or Japanese air patrols from an aircraft carrier will be much faster and easier.

At the same time, it is quite possible that if we take into account all the costs of an alternative solution to the problem - that is, numerous air bases in the Kuril Islands, Kamchatka, Sakhalin with powerful air defense and missile defense, focused on the destruction of cruise missiles - the aircraft carrier will be even cheaper.

From here, the composition of the air group of a promising aircraft carrier for the Russian Navy is also visible.

These are, first of all, heavy multifunctional fighters, the most effective for gaining air superiority. Secondly, AWACS and RTR aircraft. In the third - helicopters (or even carrier-based aircraft) PLO. That is, our aircraft carrier should be "sharpened", first of all, for solving air defense / anti-aircraft defense missions, and not for strike functions.

Of course, an aircraft carrier will need proper escort - no less than three or four destroyers.

All of the above is also true for the Northern Fleet, taking into account its geographical features, of course.

But strike aircraft ...

Here, in my opinion, one cannot do without the revival of naval missile-carrying aviation in all its splendor.

As mentioned above, the American ADS does not have to go to the Barents or the Sea of ​​Okhotsk in order to establish air supremacy there. They can do this from the coast of Norway or beyond the Kuril ridge. And even the Su-34 will not have enough combat radius to reach them there from continental airfields.

And it will be somewhat presumptuous to pin all hopes on the airfield base of the same Kamchatka - it turns out that it should be able to repel cruise missile attacks, and provide its own air defense, and even cover large sectors of the Sea of ​​Okhotsk and the A2 / AD zone near Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky ... and ensure the basing of a sufficient number of Su-34s? And duplicate such opportunities for Sakhalin?

At the same time, the availability of aircraft (with the capabilities of the Tu-22M3 or better) in conjunction with the aircraft carrier will allow (with very good chances of success) to carry out an operation to destroy the enemy AUS operating outside the A2 / AD zones of the Northern or Pacific Fleet. And when planning their operations, US admirals will have to take into account such a possibility, which, of course, will force them to be more careful.

By the way, if someone wants to argue about aircraft carriers - in the "Decree", which was signed by V.V. Putin in 2017 in the chapter "Strategic requirements for the Navy, tasks and priorities in the field of its construction and development" has an interesting phrase:

"It is planned to create a naval aircraft carrier complex."

It is clear that to promise does not mean to marry. But, at least, such was the intention.

Is it possible to resolve the issue of destroying the enemy AUS behind the same Kuril ridge by the forces of our missile-carrying "Ash"?

In theory, yes.

In practice, for this, it will be extremely important to provide air cover along the Great Kuril Ridge. And compulsory additional reconnaissance of the AUS according to the data of satellites and (or) ZGRLS. With which, again, carrier-based aviation will cope much better than aircraft from Kamchatka or Sakhalin airfields.

In the north of our missile-carrying aviation, it would be much more correct not to "break" to the location of the AUS through half of Norway, but, having flown straight to the north and making a corresponding "detour", from the north and attack. And here, only carrier-based aircraft can provide cover for missile carriers - aircraft from land airfields will not have enough combat radius.

But this does not mean that aircraft such as the Su-30 or Su-34 have nothing to do in naval aviation. They will be more than appropriate over the Black and Baltic Seas.

Now let's see what we need to solve the tasks of strategic non-nuclear deterrence, to ensure the presence of the Russian Navy in the distant sea and ocean zones.

General Marine Forces


It's all very simple.

Submarines and aircraft are very well suited for projection of force from the sea, for conducting combat operations against the fleet and the coast - especially if they act together. Accordingly, the aircraft carrier air defense / anti-aircraft defense and three or four destroyers of its direct cover. In combination with the "anti-aircraft" submarine division, which is based on the same "Yaseni-M". With the support of a couple of the above-described PAYMENTS. Together they represent a formidable naval force capable of inflicting a decisive defeat in the ocean on almost any fleet in the world except the American one.


The problem with such a connection is that the absolute maximum, which we can dream of, at least in theory, is three aircraft carrier multipurpose groups (AMG), of which one is based in the north, the second is part of the Pacific Fleet, and the third passes the current and / or capital repairs.

At the same time, there are many more places in the sea-ocean where the Russian fleet should be present.

Therefore, it makes sense to attend to the construction of frigates that have sufficient seaworthiness for walking in the ocean and universal weapons for all occasions (like the frigates of Project 22350). Which in peacetime will walk on the seas, oceans, showing the flag of the Russian Federation where it is needed. And in the case of the approach of Armageddon, they will reinforce our forces in the A2 / AD zones.

As for the destroyers to accompany the aircraft carrier, then larger ships will be needed. Something like a modernized version of the Gorshkovs - project 22350M.

To all of the above, of course, it is necessary to add a certain number of landing ships. And a significant auxiliary fleet capable of supporting the actions of the Russian Navy in the distant sea and ocean zones.

In the end, only two questions remain.

Can we create such a fleet technically? And is our economy able to “pull out” such expenses?

But this article has already turned out to be very long - let's talk about it next time ...
Author:
326 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Comrade
    Comrade 20 March 2021 04: 38
    +13
    Dear Andrey, thank you very much for the sensible article written in your corporate identity - fascinating and simply about difficult. I don't know much about modern naval forces, but your ideas and thoughts seem to me sound and logical.
    1. Ross xnumx
      Ross xnumx 20 March 2021 05: 59
      +2
      Honestly and frankly. "In the first lines of my letter ..."
      ... nevertheless, I will allow myself to express myself on the merits of the issue: to state my point of view, which, perhaps, will be somewhat different from the positions of the above respected authors.

      You can express your own point of view, defining before this the point of view of opponents.
      Where is it: “R. Skomorokhov and A. Vorontsov offer ... ", and" A. Timokhin expresses his own ... "? With what will we make a further comparison? Well, yes, God bless them. By “preliminary caresses”, we realized that Skomorokhov and Vorontsov tried to show the respected public the situation with the state of the Russian fleet today, to demonstrate its compliance with the same “Decree of the President of the Russian Federation of July 20, 2017 No. 327“ On Approval of the Fundamentals of State Policy of the Russian Federation in areas of naval activities for the period up to 2030 "and explain that shaking non-existent" power "in front of the enemy is ridiculous and stupid, that such issues need to be approached comprehensively, using the existing capabilities of the existing fleets (mobilizing them in the most radical way) and acting in accordance with the defense doctrine of the Russian Federation.
      Mr. A. Timokhin painted the situation as if he were Peter I, and the others were Swedish spies. He is for the Russian fleet (especially the far sea zone), and his opponents are for rubber boats with machine gunners on board.
      So, these are the main thoughts of the articles you are analyzing and ideas (positions) that are "competitive" to your point of view.
      ==========
      In other words, the country's leadership, at least at the level of setting common goals, wants to have a fleet that will retain the status of a great maritime power for the Russian Federation.

      In other words, we only hear about the prospects until 2027 ... 2030 ... 2035 ... 2050 (no shitty year for ourselves !!!), global plans and the reorganization of everything and everyone, but in fact we have a snail's pace of development production and the misuse of budget funds that hit the country (see Kudrin's report).
      It makes no sense to analyze the article point by point. The style and materials with many names from abbreviations show that you sincerely wish well for both Russia and its Navy. Do not consider it arrogant, but your position is akin to this:

      with one amendment: "Let's meet at sea, let's take a fight ..."
      Otherwise, how to understand:
      1. Highly effective mine-sweeping forces capable of bringing our surface and submarine ships out of the naval base "to clean water."
      ... I will only say that the mine-sweeping business in the Russian Navy is in a terrible state, which does not allow fighting modern types of foreign mines.

      I understand that the planted mines in the Russian waters already mean a declaration of war. And, besides "cleaning the water", there are no other ways to curb an aggressive enemy? Or do we need "to Paris on business, urgently" by waterway and go to the operational space immediately?
      The work is large and detailed. There is no point in dwelling on each point, because:
      But this article has already turned out to be very long - let's talk about it next time ...

      Unambiguously correct questions are posed at the end of the article:
      Can we create such a fleet technically? And is our economy able to “pull out” such expenses?

      And it would be more interesting to hear the answers to them. What exactly is going wrong, that the technical equipment of the BATTLE !!! ships inferior to the equipment of private yachts "Russian" nouveau riche.?
      What is the Russian economy puzzled in (in what direction has the overwhelming success been achieved) and where does it invest a lot of funds, that it does not have enough money left to maintain military development at the level necessary for the country's complete security?
      1. antivirus
        antivirus 20 March 2021 07: 36
        -6
        Can we create such a fleet technically? And is our economy able to “pull out” such expenses?

        --and to the question about birds:
        1. I think that the Russian Federation looks at the world like France before and during WWII - GIVE UP - DON'T GIVE UP HOW IT WILL BE MORE PROFITABLE (IN MONEY) - this is not about the GDP, but about the tn of the elite.
        2. Several years ago, the inconspicuous and irreplaceable Akudrin proposed a program for the repair of auto bridges and other structures .. on behalf of the ONF it seems. This shows the level of neglect of the infrastructure and tasks facing the country.
        3.objectively and subjectively, both at first and second glance, and at the estimate of the stick to the nose, and at the third glance - not to the fleet.
        ... road density, medical equipment, public debt management, actual life expectancy, the development of the "eastern range", threats in SrAsia and the Caucasus (3 billion look at food and water resources south of our former republics).
        I have already wisely pointed out - "the control of Eurasia is paramount, the fleet is in 47th place"
        how the fleet contributes to the control of the deserts-steppes of Eurasia - to such an extent and build it.
        The fleet's program stems from the "friendly inquiries" of the FSB of the bearded southerners and the sincere conversations of the SVR friends in Pakistan-Turkey-Thailand (is it only the Taliban?).

        further empty crush. it is not transistors and microcircuits for torpedoes and missiles that deal with the backlog of the fleet.
        1. Ingvar 72
          Ingvar 72 20 March 2021 20: 55
          +2
          Quote: antivirus
          And is our economy able to “pull out” such expenses?

          Naturally not with the current raw material economy. The problem is that a strong army and navy is unthinkable without an independent and strong economy.
          But with this it is much more difficult for us, and there are not even prerequisites for improving the situation. The Ministry of Finance still believes that the best investment of foreign exchange earnings is the purchase of securities of other states, and the country's leading enterprises are sold to foreign investors.
      2. squid
        squid 20 March 2021 08: 27
        -16%
        Quote: ROSS 42
        Mr. A. Timokhin painted the situation as if he were Peter I, and the others were Swedish spies. He is for the Russian fleet (especially the far sea zone), and his opponents are for rubber boats with machine gunners on board.
        So, these are the main thoughts of the articles you are analyzing and ideas (positions) that are "competitive" to your point of view.


        Good definition of the position of "Mr. Timokhin". Although I would emphasize not so much on his commitment to the Great Fleets, but on the aplomb and self-conceit of a self-styled "specialist" who makes himself a great expert in the rank of admiral no less I even bothered to read it on the Internet (and Timokhin, who has never served in the humanities journalist, has no other sources of inexhaustible experience).
        Comparison with Peter I right to the point - both in the self-conceit of the subject, and in the enthusiasm for the "great fleet" from wooden sailboats aircraft carriers (koi in terms of combat value in our time are increasingly approaching the frigates of the 18th century)
      3. region58
        region58 22 March 2021 15: 22
        0
        Quote: ROSS 42
        we only hear about the prospects until 2027 ... 2030 ... 2035 ... 2050 (no shitty year for ourselves !!!)

        I apologize, but the country's leadership comes and goes (as I understand you about them), but Russia remains.
      4. Devil13
        Devil13 23 March 2021 12: 22
        0
        Questions of economics and yachts - how will the author give you an answer to this? Maybe just ask Putin and the Federation Council with the prosecutor's office, and then again they forgiven the theft at facilities for 100 million by 1 person, gave a condition?

        The author describes the competent composition of the fleet.
        Your skomorokhov cannot even understand what his articles are talking about - a set of emotions, no logic.

        And yes, it offers rubber boats with machine guns, pordon, ordinary brawlers as the basis of the entire fleet, and the Tu-160m without cover and calculation of years for production, and prices for 1 flight.

        There is also a statement of tasks, based on the existing doctrine, and answers to the question "how to use and implement it."

        In general, there was an article by Klimov, about WHAT can be built in the same financial range that we are building right now, and from what we are building right now. And also a gorgeous article on the fleet that needs a MINIMUM.

        If we do not have systems and minesweepers that will detect these mines, and there is no fleet - which will detect the boat, what prevents the boat from dumping mines in advance right at the exit from the White Sea?
        And so on.

        Against the background of authors who write complete nonsense, a person writes logically at least. And explains how and why.
        Do you need a detailed analysis? Well, if you are not capable, then someone literate, maybe even me, can spend it if he finds twenty hours. And twenty of my hours is 10000 rubles, at least.
        Maybe the author in the next parts will disassemble the questioned by Klimov "where is the money, Billy, where is the technology, and what to do", but from here I remember that the throughput of the industry is 1 reducer per year for a frigate of type 22350 now
    2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      20 March 2021 08: 04
      +11
      Greetings, dear colleague! Thank you for your kind feedback. hi
      1. Ross xnumx
        Ross xnumx 20 March 2021 16: 56
        +3
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        Greetings, dear colleague! Thank you for your kind feedback.

        For your work, I put a cross on the article, but I never thought that there are so many moral midgets dwarfs. I have already written before and I will repeat without hesitation:
        STUPID CHANGE IN USER'S RATING WITHOUT EXPRESSING OWN ATTITUDE TO THE MESSAGE SPEAKS ONLY ABOUT ONE: HERD STUDY.
        Anyway! Here some of their comrades are asked to write a vacation application. Where can you build the correct word order in a sentence? belay And if there are a lot of offers?
        Train! The author gives you the opportunity.
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          20 March 2021 18: 09
          +8
          Quote: ROSS 42
          STUPID CHANGE IN USER'S RATING WITHOUT EXPRESSING OWN ATTITUDE TO THE MESSAGE SPEAKS ONLY ABOUT ONE: HERD STUDY.

          Yuri Vasilievich, I don't want to enter into every discussion. A simple example. I kind of wrote in Russian
          Not wanting to become a third opposing party, I will nevertheless allow myself to speak on the merits of the issue.

          That is, it was directly said that I was not looking for a discussion, and my article was just MY view of the fleet. And where do you start your comment?
          Quote: ROSS 42
          You can express your own point of view, defining before this the point of view of opponents.
          Where is it: “R. Skomorokhov and A. Vorontsov offer ... ", and" A. Timokhin expresses his own ... "? With what will we make a further comparison?

          Well, what to talk about with a person who reads written diagonally, or does not even condescend to read the article?
      2. Nemchinov Vl
        Nemchinov Vl 25 March 2021 15: 07
        0
        for a long time there were no your articles. I got bored somehow ! Welcome back ! hi
        interested in how to get out of the crisis in corvette building, from your point of view ?!
        -
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        Therefore, in the part of air defense, the emphasis should be on the destruction of guided munitions. And the main specialization of the corvette is to make anti-submarine warfare.

        In other words, the corvette should be a cheap and massive ship, focused primarily on anti-submarine activities. We, alas, do everything the other way around, trying to shove the frigate's weapons into the corvette. Well and we get a corvette at the price of a frigate, naturally. That reduces its basic (PLO) capabilities. And it makes impossible the massive construction of these very necessary ships of the Russian Navy.
        adhering to approximately the same views, I absolutely do not understand why the Navy is "on the occasion of the USC" and continues to contract 20380 (!), in spite of the "mismatch of this project, according to its direct purpose" ?! Why pr. 11664 is jammed, which could be a great alternative (!)... After specifying those tasks of the project proposed by Zelenodolsk Design Bureau, it is easy to immediately adjust it (including and for the price), under the priority (in terms of functionality) composition of weapons systems .... The industrially developed air defense system "Shtil-1", the same SJSC "Zarya-2", 2 to 8 launchers UKSK (which will allow (!), to replace the aging MPK and MRK with one BMZ ship project, ships of ONE project). And this greater mass character of the series (versatility!), and in the long term cost reduction ... The only thing that is necessary for them in the first place is to immediately invest the MAXIMUM in the production of new engines from the D-500 series with 8000 hp. !!), and GEM from "their fours" (by analogy with DDA-12000, corvettes 20380) ... If we resolve the issue of serial production of three or four sets of such power plants per year, (let's say a couple of sets in Kolomna, and a couple on Kingisep plant under their license), then the production of hulls may be assigned to the Amur Shipyard, the More plant (in Feodosia), and the Zelenodolsk plant or the Kerch Zaliv plant ... !!.
    3. Aleksandr1971
      Aleksandr1971 21 March 2021 06: 56
      0
      Finally, on the VO, a well-grounded, balanced, and most importantly, complete article on the tasks and needs of the construction of our Fleet appeared on the VO.

      The articles by Klimov and Timokhin were very, very good, but only dealt with certain aspects of naval development.

      I can’t resist and will again put in my penny for the fact that it is necessary to place diesel SSBNs in the Caspian, where they are not afraid of either mines, or PLO aircraft, or NATO submarines.
      But the Kremlin must have something in its mind that prevents it from making this irresistible chess move.
  2. Vladimir_2U
    Vladimir_2U 20 March 2021 04: 57
    0
    Interesting article, almost programmatic, thanks to the author!


    At the same time, the endowment of general-purpose naval groupings with non-nuclear deterrent functionality is one of the priorities for the development of the fleet (point "b" of Article 47 of the "Decree").
    In my opinion, you should not get carried away with non-nuclear deterrence, you definitely should not do it in the American style with many thousands of CDs. But this is not a complaint to the author, of course.

    It is simply impossible to create a corvette capable of repelling an air raid by specialized naval aviation on its own. This is difficult even for ships of much larger displacement.
    Likewise, there is no point in trying to stuff the corvette with anti-ship missiles up to and including the Zircon. The task of fighting the enemy's surface forces is not his target. It should be dealt with by aviation. Therefore, in the part of air defense, the emphasis should be on the destruction of guided munitions.
    The author confused the air defense a little, the confident defeat of guided munitions ALREADY implies advanced means of both detection and guidance and fire weapons. As for the anti-ship missile, it may not be worth "stuffing", but if there is a possibility, then why not, and certainly for self-defense, anti-ship missiles are needed.

    And yet, I did not see anything about ships of pre-corral classes, such as MRK and RK, in the concept of the fleet, did the respected author ignore them, or have he forgotten?
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      20 March 2021 07: 48
      +15
      Quote: Vladimir_2U
      The author confused the air defense a little, the confident defeat of guided munitions ALREADY implies advanced means of both detection and guidance and fire weapons.

      Let me explain with an example - the defeat of guided munitions is a task for the Pantsir, the Redut air defense system is not needed here. How did we do it? First, they put the ZRAK - no, not enough. Let's slap Redoubt. And the Redoubt with the existing radars on the corvette does not want to work normally, in the end they tried to put the Barrier. Which, even if it worked as expected (and it does not work as expected) costs like half a corvette. Well, why are these dances with a tambourine?
      Quote: Vladimir_2U
      but if there is a possibility, then why not

      Because any additional weaponry makes the corvette more expensive and reduces the number of corvettes built. And they need to be built in a large series to fight the main enemy - submarines
      Quote: Vladimir_2U
      And yet, I did not see anything about ships of pre-coronal classes, such as MRK and RK

      Because I consider them unnecessary, except, perhaps, the Caspian Flotilla
      1. bk0010
        bk0010 20 March 2021 10: 26
        -3
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        Because any additional weaponry makes the corvette more expensive and reduces the number of corvettes built.
        1) UKSK is not additional armament: how will you sink enemy nuclear submarines, with one Package ("it will not be enough")? 2) Our most probable "partner" has the main striking force at sea - aviation, and we have few ships, there will be no one to cover corvettes without a zonal air defense system out of sight of the coast, so a normal air defense system will be useful, if not to repel a raid, then a couple of insolent hunters drive away. And with a bunch - and fight off a raid. Is it expensive? So you need to build immediately not corvettes, but frigates, and send corvettes to the MRC. In addition, a normal GAK is a big thing, it will be clearly better on a frigate. Plus, to place these new unmanned demining devices on frigates, since the ship still does not need to climb into the minefield itself. Of course, the protection of the water area by frigates is cool, but I see no other reasonable way out.
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          20 March 2021 12: 40
          +5
          Quote: bk0010
          1) UKSK is not additional armament: how will you sink enemy nuclear submarines, with one Package ("it will not be enough")?

          Torpedoes that are really needed on the corvette
          Quote: bk0010
          our most likely "partner" is the main strike force at sea - aviation, and we have few ships

          Therefore, we need naval aviation, including AB
          Quote: bk0010
          so a normal air defense system will be useful, if you do not reflect the raid, then drive off a couple of insolent hunters

          repelling a properly organized raid is a task that cannot be solved by a missile cruiser. And from the "Redoubt" the crews of the ships can only shoot themselves
          Quote: bk0010
          And with a bunch - and fight off a raid.

          They MUST NOT walk in a heap - they must form a network to search for PL
          Quote: bk0010
          Is it expensive? So you need to build immediately not corvettes, but frigates, and send corvettes to the MRC.

          let's just TARKR
          There is a fundamental error in your logic. Instead of solving the air defense problem with the most effective tool (multifunctional fighters + AWACS and IRTR aircraft), you are trying to solve it palliatively, by strengthening the air defense of ships. The result - the problem will not be solved, but you will spend a lot of money
          1. bk0010
            bk0010 20 March 2021 12: 51
            +3
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            Therefore, we need naval aviation, including AB
            It will have to be made qualitatively and quantitatively comparable with all NATO base and carrier-based naval aviation, which they will be able to concentrate on the theater of operations. In my opinion, even aircraft carriers are more real.
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            Instead of solving the air defense problem with the most effective tool (multifunctional fighters + AWACS and IRTR aircraft)
            At a more or less decent distance, you will not provide the KUG air defense with basic aviation: until it gathers and flies, the ships will already be at the bottom. An example is the Black Sea Fleet in WWII. The ships were bombarded from the air within the reach of the base aircraft.
            1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              20 March 2021 18: 13
              -1
              Quote: bk0010
              It will have to be made qualitatively and quantitatively comparable with all NATO base and carrier-based naval aviation, which they will be able to concentrate on the theater of operations.

              Not necessary. Even a significantly smaller air force can still complicate enemy operations. Simply put, on the same Nimitz, at the usual time, 48-60 Super Hornets, in the event of an air attack, he will leave the squadron for cover, and of the remaining 48 aircraft, he will be forced to dispatch up to half of the aircraft in the strike version for a serious surface target. That is, even an ordinary regiment of 24 vehicles has a good chance of repelling such an attack. All this is oversimplified, but fundamentally true.
              Quote: bk0010
              At a more or less decent distance, you will not provide KUG air defense with basic aviation:

              That is why AB
      2. Sahalinets
        Sahalinets 20 March 2021 10: 42
        +1
        And yet, I did not see anything about ships of pre-coronal classes, such as MRK and RK

        Because I consider them unnecessary, except, perhaps, the Caspian Flotilla

        Well, why? RTOs may not be needed, but MPLCs would be quite appropriate for close defense of bases. Especially with the support of coastal-based PLO helicopters. There was also interaction between albatrosses and Mi-14.
        1. hydrox
          hydrox 20 March 2021 13: 25
          0
          Most likely, a submarine frigate would be more suitable here, since there will be nowhere to squeeze a good GAS on the corvette :: but if a frigate, then it will be possible to place a hangar with a submarine with a helicopter there - then this is a vessel for the near sea zone.
      3. Vladimir_2U
        Vladimir_2U 20 March 2021 12: 31
        +1
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        Let me explain with an example - the defeat of guided munitions is a task for the "Pantsir"
        One Armor will not give all-round protection and in the current configuration also a normal view, which means they need two for the alleged corvette and the antenna located as high as possible, so a combination of air defense means is still required, iron can and should be made cheaper, but only the crew needs at least a chance to give for survival.

        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        Because any additional weaponry makes the corvette more expensive and reduces the number of corvettes built
        The place for the UVP can still be foreseen, and with the advent of finance and fill it)))

        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        Because I consider them unnecessary, except, perhaps, the Caspian Flotilla
        Are they not needed at all in the Baltic, Kuriles and SeverAks? Let not RTOs, let something anti-submarine in the same tonnage, and RTOs with UVP for "large" CDs will be quite good, here you are fundamentally wrong.
        1. Dread
          Dread 20 March 2021 13: 19
          0
          Quote: Vladimir_2U
          task for "Carapace"
          One Armor will not give all-round protection and in the current configuration also a normal view, which means you need two of them for the alleged corvette and the antenna located as high as possible ...

          Vladimir - why the antenna, as high as possible located? This is not entirely correct, given the maximum range of the Pantsir-M. High enough it is necessary! This I have already pointed out to M. Klimov in discussions of his articles about "Barrier" and
          gave an example of the equation of the maximum range taking into account the wavelength!
          1. Vladimir_2U
            Vladimir_2U 20 March 2021 14: 28
            0
            Quote: Dread
            Vladimir - why is the antenna located as high as possible? This is not entirely correct, given the maximum range of the Pantsir-M. High enough!
            It is the maximum, taking into account the design of the superstructure and seaworthiness, if there is only one "Armor", then it will have to have time to substitute, and then every km of the radio horizon will count.
      4. antivirus
        antivirus 21 March 2021 00: 15
        0
        because I consider them unnecessary, except, perhaps, the Caspian Flotilla

        not a sailor - but I will speak out - are RTOs and RCs small in the Sea of ​​Japan? will it get to the Japs? And to Tokyo + 500 km to the east in Tikh.ok?
        What is the difference between the mobile ground "Yars" and the strategic missile forces from the MRK? -price? what else? what and who is better?
        brains on the armor and calibers of the barrels zatzykny? - another time - those principles of construction from the end of 19 to have gone into books - not only the United States are experimenting with Zamwalt. and ours are weird. This is bad?
      5. Ryusey
        Ryusey 22 March 2021 10: 23
        -1
        Baltic Sea, no?
    2. hydrox
      hydrox 20 March 2021 08: 15
      0
      Quote: Vladimir_2U
      And yet, I did not see anything about ships of pre-corral classes, such as MRK and RK, in the concept of the fleet, did the respected author ignore them, or have he forgotten?

      The author did not consider it necessary to determine the purpose, goals, strategies and tactics of using these "ships" - therefore, they did not find a place in the fleets of the naval, distant sea and ocean zones of action.
      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        20 March 2021 09: 05
        +8
        Quote: hydrox
        The author did not consider it necessary to determine the purpose, goals, strategies and tactics of using these "ships"

        Sorry, but this is not possible on the scale of this article. Here it is necessary to write a large article on each class of ships
  3. apro
    apro 20 March 2021 04: 59
    -3
    Can we create such a fleet technically? And is our economy able to “pull out” such expenses?

    First, the author describes the Wishlist ... but the harsh truth of life raises completely different questions.
  4. squid
    squid 20 March 2021 05: 05
    -17%
    The author began for health and finished for the repose. He joined the delusional idea of ​​the Timokhites about the need for aircraft carriers to defend the coast (moreover, practically inland waters). Moreover, he decided to revive a specialized MRA from some unknown aircraft. There was no need to print, the same nonsense is broadcast by Timokhin in every article.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      20 March 2021 07: 53
      +12
      Quote: squid
      Joined Timokhinsky's delusional idea of ​​the need for aircraft carriers to defend the coast

      What to do - they are needed there. And no matter how much you write "nonsense" - such will remain
      1. squid
        squid 20 March 2021 08: 09
        -22%
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk

        What to do - they are needed there. And no matter how much you write "nonsense" - such will remain


        absurd Timokha's fantasies, which, due to the lack of refutation (and smart people do not like to argue with idiots, preferring to pass by), have overgrown a circle of followers on the topvarchik.

        They need an aircraft carrier. in the sea of ​​Okhotsk ... facepalm.
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          20 March 2021 09: 06
          +15
          Quote: squid
          absurd Timokha's fantasies, which, due to the lack of refutation (and smart people do not like to argue with idiots, preferring to pass by), have overgrown a circle of followers on the topvarchik.

          I won't even ask what Timokhin has to do with it. The need for AV to protect our shores was understood back in the USSR
          1. squid
            squid 20 March 2021 09: 12
            -15%
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            The need for AV to protect our shores was understood back in the USSR


            First of all, the USSR is not Russia. Neither by capabilities nor by tasks.
            Second, technology has changed in 30 years.
            Thirdly, even the USSR has not built a single full-fledged aircraft carrier in its entire history. There was only one defective scoop, at the end of the day, and several completely useless and useless.
            1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              20 March 2021 09: 59
              +9
              Quote: squid
              First of all, the USSR is not Russia. Neither by capabilities nor by tasks.

              First, the need to destroy enemy AUS has not gone away.
              Quote: squid
              Second, technology has changed in 30 years.

              Secondly, there are still no palliative technologies to effectively solve the above problem.
              Quote: squid
              In the third, even the USSR has not built a single full-fledged aircraft carrier in its entire history.

              For what it is necessary to say to comrades like you, who in every possible way slowed down the construction of full-fledged AV in the USSR. Could have built back in the 70s
              1. squid
                squid 20 March 2021 10: 26
                -10%
                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                First, the need to destroy enemy AUS has not gone away.

                And what does the Russian AV have to do with it?

                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                Secondly, there are still no palliative technologies to effectively solve the above problem.

                Completely: effective methods of satellite detection and target designation, multipurpose fighters with a combat radius of 1500+ km carrying anti-ballistic missiles and launching them on the outer central control center, anti-ship missiles with a range of 2-5 thousand km that do not need a carrier at all.

                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                For what it is necessary to say to comrades like you, who in every possible way slowed down the construction of full-fledged AV in the USSR. Could have built back in the 70s

                I need to say thank you to your brilliant naval commanders, who spent money on aircraft carrier ships and carrier-based aircraft, and who received nothing at the exit.
                1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                  20 March 2021 12: 44
                  +5
                  Sorry, but my advice to you - read at least ANYTHING about the fleet.
                  Quote: squid
                  Fully: effective methods of satellite detection and target designation,

                  The legend was in the USSR. There was no reliable control center.
                  Quote: squid
                  multirole fighters with a combat radius of 1500+ km

                  Ineffective from the shore
                  1. squid
                    squid 20 March 2021 17: 46
                    -6
                    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                    Sorry, but my advice to you - read at least ANYTHING about the fleet.

                    Sorry, but I'll return it to you - read it yourself. Desirable, not only on topvar and, especially, not only in Timokhin's articles.

                    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                    The legend was in the USSR. There was no reliable control center.

                    The Legend was developed, for a second, 50 years ago. A little earlier - 65 years ago - there was no space at all. Much has changed since then. Here, read about the capabilities of modern civil (!) Satellite surveillance systems created by small teams for relative pennies:
                    https://topwar.ru/178436-vsevidjaschee-oko-kompanii-capella-space-predvestnik-revoljucii-v-sputnikovoj-razvedke.html

                    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                    Ineffective from the shore

                    as a carrier of an anti-aircraft missile system with external target designation, any aircraft with an acceptable range and combat load will be effective. su-35 or even more so 57 - behind the eyes. plus the launch range of the missile defense system itself is 1000 km or more. if you want to go further - recently it was proposed to use the Tu-160 for these purposes - these will reach the Indian Ocean. but in any case, no aircraft carrier is needed for this
                    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                      20 March 2021 21: 43
                      0
                      Quote: squid
                      Sorry, but I'll return it to you - read it yourself.

                      I, unlike you, have been reading on this topic for about 30 years. Therefore, I understand that this is
                      Quote: squid
                      as a carrier of an anti-aircraft missile system with external target designation, any aircraft with an acceptable range and combat load will be effective. su-35 or even more so 57 - behind the eyes.

                      Perfect nonsense, excuse me
                      Quote: squid
                      Here, read about the capabilities of modern civil (!) Satellite surveillance systems created by small teams for relative pennies:

                      Have you read your own link? Or so, diagonally?
            2. Vladimir_2U
              Vladimir_2U 20 March 2021 12: 32
              +2
              Quote: squid
              First of all, the USSR is not Russia. Neither by capabilities nor by tasks.

              Well, that's it, now the defense is not needed, come whoever you want! So what?
              1. squid
                squid 20 March 2021 17: 51
                +1
                On the contrary, now for defense it is all the more necessary to think carefully so as not to throw the resources that have become very limited on expensive and useless obsolete types of weapons, such as aircraft carriers. Their role will gradually be reduced to floating airfields for colonial wars.
                1. victor50
                  victor50 20 March 2021 21: 11
                  -1
                  Quote: squid
                  resources that have become very limited for expensive and useless obsolete weapons, such as aircraft carriers.

                  Tell Americans, Chinese, Indians about it! laughing
            3. Ryusey
              Ryusey 22 March 2021 11: 28
              -1
              What a stupid comment, the USSR is not Russia, and what, the sea borders have disappeared, or suddenly all the enemies have disappeared?
              Although what to talk about with an entity that offends the homeland of its Parents ...
        2. Artyom Karagodin
          Artyom Karagodin 20 March 2021 13: 48
          +6
          There were two research projects on this topic (one - under Kuznetsov, the other - already in the era of Gorshkov), and both showed that without aircraft carriers, you can reliably cover your forces only at a distance of 300 km from the coast. They will not ripen further. But even at such a distance, they with a rather large degree of probability will no longer arrive to defend, but to avenge the destroyed BMZ ships.

          They came up with two ways out: either constantly keep in the sky up to a regiment of fighters, or build AV. When they began to believe that it was cheaper, it turned out that the first option would eat up as much money in six months as the second. As a result, the fleet managed to knock out first 1143.5, and then the nuclear-powered Ulyanovsk.

          So there is no need to refute Timokhin, try to refute the results of the R&D "Order".
          1. Bez 310
            Bez 310 20 March 2021 14: 44
            0
            Quote: Artyom Karagodin
            without aircraft carriers, you can reliably cover your forces only at a distance of 300 km from the coast

            What "own powers" were discussed in the research work?
            1. Artyom Karagodin
              Artyom Karagodin 20 March 2021 15: 20
              0
              Obviously, the same about the ships. We're talking about the fleet.
              1. Bez 310
                Bez 310 20 March 2021 15: 31
                +1
                Quote: Artyom Karagodin
                about ships

                What are these ships doing?
                And who is attacking them, since they need to be covered with aircraft?
                As I understand it, the R&D conditions were adjusted to
                the desired answer option.
                1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                  20 March 2021 16: 12
                  +4
                  Quote: Bez 310
                  As I understand it, the R&D conditions were adjusted to
                  the desired answer option.

                  As far as I understand, you are completely unaware of these R&D projects. And what is the point then to make such categorical statements? "I have not read, but I condemn!"?
                  1. Bez 310
                    Bez 310 20 March 2021 16: 16
                    -2
                    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                    You are completely unaware of these R&D projects.

                    Type in the search engine "NIR Order", and you will be happy.
                    But that's not the point at all, I'm interested in something else - what
                    ships (groups of ships) should be guarded by aviation?
                    Who will attack them, and where?
                    1. Artyom Karagodin
                      Artyom Karagodin 20 March 2021 17: 14
                      +3
                      Quote: Bez 310
                      what
                      ships (groups of ships) should be guarded by aviation?
                      Who will attack them, and where?

                      Domestic. Enemies. In the sea.

                      PS What are the questions, so are the answers.
                      1. Bez 310
                        Bez 310 20 March 2021 18: 36
                        -4
                        Quote: Artyom Karagodin
                        What are the questions, so are the answers.

                        There are no more questions for you.
                        Thank you.
                    2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                      20 March 2021 17: 56
                      +5
                      Quote: Bez 310
                      Type in the search engine "NIR Order", and you will be happy.

                      Excuse me, but you don't know anything about the Order, so just type in and you will be happy.
                      Quote: Bez 310
                      But that's not the point at all, I'm interested in something else - what
                      ships (groups of ships) should be guarded by aviation?

                      The main conclusions of the R&D "Order" were as follows:
                      1) Aviation support for the Navy is of paramount, urgent task, since it involves the development of naval strategic nuclear forces; without air cover under the conditions of the domination of anti-submarine aviation of a potential enemy, we will not be able to ensure not only the combat stability, but also the deployment of our submarines with both ballistic missiles and multi-purpose, which are the main striking force of the Navy;
                      2) Without fighter cover, successful operations of the sea-based missile, reconnaissance and anti-submarine coast-based aviation — the second most important strike component of the Navy;
                      3) Without a fighter cover, more or less acceptable combat stability of large ships is impossible.
                      At the same time, land-based naval aviation forces air support of ships at sea even at a distance of 200-300 km from the coast is practically unrealistic.
                      Thus, in the area of ​​operation of US carrier-based aviation, no actions by surface and submarine ships, as well as aviation, are provided, with the exception of coastal areas.
                      1. Bez 310
                        Bez 310 20 March 2021 18: 32
                        +2
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        You do not know anything about the Order

                        Nope, I don’t know ... But it’s somehow strange that this NIR
                        conducted by Nevskoe PKB (CDB) (with the involvement of
                        various organizations), and conclusions were drawn
                        in favor of this very Nesky PKB (TsKB),
                        which was engaged in the development of the aircraft carrier
                        Project 1160. But that’s not the point, because before it was
                        the need to promote your projects for
                        receiving budget funding.
                        I have a completely different question - what actions
                        of our surface ships are planned in the zone
                        actions of US carrier-based aircraft? Where is this zone
                        and what kind of ships are they?
                      2. Artyom Karagodin
                        Artyom Karagodin 20 March 2021 19: 08
                        +1
                        Quote: Bez 310
                        what actions
                        of our surface ships are planned in the zone
                        actions of US carrier-based aircraft? Where is this zone
                        and what kind of ships are they?

                        Was it impossible to ask a question in such a form right away? To make it clear what exactly do you mean?

                        It is no secret that American aircraft carriers, despite the fact that they are considered to be multipurpose, are still mainly focused on strikes along the coast. After the end of World War II, it was generally planned to deliver nuclear strikes not only with strategic, but also with carrier-based aircraft carriers.

                        And in the future, the US Navy worked out the possibility of attacking the territory of the USSR with the help of the AUG. In the 80s, they even managed to quietly approach Kamchatka and work out training strikes directly on our territory. Moreover, we could not establish a full-fledged tracking of them. Therefore, the construction of the fleet cannot be carried out without taking into account the possibility of fighting with the AUG of the US Navy near its shores. At the same time, it is better to be able to do this not in the Barents Sea and Avacha Bay, but to push back the line of confrontation with them - the further the better. In the USSR, there was an MRA for this. And in order to cover the conditional Tu-22M3, deck ships are NECESSARY - see Andrey's article. The radius will not be enough for shore-based fighters.

                        In addition, it is with the decks that it is best to cover the KPUG, and anti-submarine aircraft (when we have it in full-fledged form, if it appears, of course) during the search for enemy submarines. And the enemy anti-submarine forces will have much more difficult. The list goes on and on. But this is what is on the surface.
                      3. ccsr
                        ccsr 20 March 2021 20: 34
                        -2
                        Quote: Artyom Karagodin
                        And in the future, the US Navy worked out the possibility of attacking the territory of the USSR with the help of the AUG. In the 80s, they even managed to quietly approach Kamchatka and work out training strikes directly on our territory.

                        Of course, I understand that you can fantasize about a lot, but I will note that even in the purely land GSVG, all the US aircraft carriers did not care, but we had to find US strategic bombers 4000 km after they started from the territory of the United States. And we expected much more damage to the group from Tridents than from several AUG, which Timokhin, Klimov and other figures love to speculate with ...
                      4. Artyom Karagodin
                        Artyom Karagodin 20 March 2021 20: 50
                        +1
                        What does fantasy have to do with it? In 1986, if I am not mistaken, two of their AUGs worked out a training strike on Kamchatka, cleverly avoiding tracking. This time.

                        Why, then, did they create an MPA in the amount of 500 units? Their main task was ALWAYS considered to counter the AUG. These are two.
                      5. ccsr
                        ccsr 21 March 2021 09: 58
                        -2
                        Quote: Artyom Karagodin
                        What does fantasy have to do with it? In 1986, if I am not mistaken, two of their AUGs worked out a training strike on Kamchatka, cleverly avoiding tracking.

                        Where did you get the idea that they got away from tracking if the intelligence of the Pacific Fleet missed them, and the intelligence of the air defense monitors all the flights of the aircraft, like the brigade and the regiment of osnaz of the intelligence department of the Far East Military District?

                        Quote: Artyom Karagodin
                        Why, then, did they create an MPA in the amount of 500 units? Their main task was ALWAYS considered to counter the AUG. These are two.

                        Yes, we had a time when money was not spared for the defense industry, so some military leaders did everything that came to their minds, proving their "state thinking". How it ended, many have learned the hard way.
                      6. Artyom Karagodin
                        Artyom Karagodin 22 March 2021 08: 29
                        0
                        From the fact that the officers themselves, the participants in those events, write about it.
                      7. ccsr
                        ccsr 22 March 2021 11: 40
                        +2
                        Quote: Artyom Karagodin
                        From the fact that the officers themselves, the participants in those events, write about it.

                        They write seeing all this from their bell tower, and do not understand that for the country's air defense, aircraft 300-400 km from our coast are already being tracked, and are targets of destruction in the event of a sudden approach to the state border. In general, radio-technical air defense troops operate up to 1500 km at least, but in reality they can determine the direction of flights of enemy aircraft even further.
                      8. Artyom Karagodin
                        Artyom Karagodin 22 March 2021 12: 09
                        0
                        How then did American planes calmly work out an air attack on Kamchatka and no one even tried to intercept them? Because they learned about this raid already when both AUG participating in it left the Soviet coast very far.
                      9. ccsr
                        ccsr 22 March 2021 12: 56
                        +1
                        Quote: Artyom Karagodin
                        How then did American planes calmly work out an air attack on Kamchatka and no one even tried to intercept them?

                        And with what fright should we intercept any aircraft of naval aviation, if the country's air defense is sharpened primarily to defeat the enemy's strategic aviation? The fact that the Americans flew and worked out their tasks does not mean that our air defense systems did not track them and the pilots on duty did not sit in the cockpits.
                        Quote: Artyom Karagodin
                        Because they learned about this raid already when both AUG participating in it left the Soviet coast very far.

                        So it was the naval intelligence that went wrong, and did not even bother, because of its snobbery, to urgently request the chief of the air defense and the chief of intelligence of the Far East Military District, so that they could help them provide all possible assistance in finding the AUG, which they had lost. And I assure you that these structures would have given the exact coordinates of this AUG within a few tens of minutes or hours, because I will not believe that radar and communication systems did not work in this AUG, but the flights were carried out.
                2. Ryusey
                  Ryusey 22 March 2021 11: 52
                  -1
                  And what, explain?
                3. ccsr
                  ccsr 22 March 2021 12: 05
                  0
                  Quote: Ryusey
                  And what, explain?

                  Yes, the same "Kolchuga" or the same "Tamara":
                  During tests, the new system detected a target of the F-16 type at a distance of 400 km, CF-18A -355 km, F-15 - 365. Older fighters of the F-4 type were spotted at around 395 km, F-104 - 425 km.
            2. Silhouette
              Silhouette 23 March 2021 19: 18
              0
              Quote: Artyom Karagodin
              In 1986, if I am not mistaken, two of their AUGs worked out a training strike on Kamchatka, cleverly avoiding tracking.

              You are wrong. It was not like that there. There was no AUG. There was a single aircraft carrier that broke away from the escort ships and went in complete radio silence. There were no aviation flights. When the planes took off, they were discovered and "destroyed" in the established order.
            3. Artyom Karagodin
              Artyom Karagodin 23 March 2021 22: 47
              0
              If everything really happened as you describe, then I personally will only be glad. No kidding. As anyone else, but it is important for me to get to the bottom of the truth. And no matter how many times I make a mistake on the way, I am always ready to admit that I am wrong.

              Sorry for the high calm)))). He wrote without bothering. It turned out how it happened.

              PS Where can I find sources confirming what you said?
            4. Silhouette
              Silhouette 24 March 2021 17: 03
              0
              In the archives of the General Staff of the Navy.
            5. Artyom Karagodin
              Artyom Karagodin 24 March 2021 17: 03
              0
              Give a link?
    2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      20 March 2021 22: 33
      +2
      Quote: ccsr
      Of course, I understand that you can fantasize about a lot, but I note that even in the purely land GSVG, all the US aircraft carriers did not care

      Indeed, you can fantasize about a lot.
      Brad.
    3. Ryusey
      Ryusey 22 March 2021 11: 51
      -1
      And what are the tridents on?
    4. ccsr
      ccsr 22 March 2021 12: 09
      +1
      Quote: Ryusey
      And what are the tridents on?

      Not on an aircraft carrier, that's for sure. You are still that "expert", burn further in the same spirit ...
  5. Alexey RA
    Alexey RA 23 March 2021 11: 53
    0
    Quote: ccsr
    Of course, I understand that you can fantasize about a lot, but I note that even in the purely land GSVG, all the US aircraft carriers did not care

    It's like saying that the US Army, which landed in Africa in 1942, didn't give a damn about all the Kriegsmarine submarines. smile
    One of the main tasks of the Federation Council in Soviet times was to disrupt the transfer of forces and supplies from the United States to Europe after the outbreak of hostilities - that is, actions in the interests of that very GSVG. And then there was no escape from AUG.
  6. ccsr
    ccsr 23 March 2021 13: 45
    +1
    Quote: Alexey RA
    It's like saying that the US Army, which landed in Africa in 1942, didn't give a damn about all the Kriegsmarine submarines.

    Well, you just compared - then there were no nuclear weapons, no intercontinental strategic missiles, and you propose to take this as an example?

    Quote: Alexey RA
    One of the main tasks of the Federation Council in Soviet times was to disrupt the transfer of forces and supplies from the United States to Europe after the outbreak of hostilities -

    Do not fool me with this - you are not even aware that they airlifted troops to Europe during exercises, and no one even stuttered about the fleet. Their storage bases in Europe were already crammed to capacity, so do not invent something that was not even in sight.
    Quote: Alexey RA
    And then there was no escape from AUG.

    Stop fantasizing - I can argue that this was not, if only because of the transience of the exchange of blows. Nafig in Europe AUG, if there were only one aircraft carrying nuclear weapons there were about a thousand and 5 thousand nuclear charges? And their pilots were well trained, and part of the aviation was in 15 minutes readiness for departure. What other AUG, in this case, can we talk about, if there were about 4,5 thousand aircraft of different types in total? Much has changed now, but the essence of hostilities in Europe has not changed - there is no place for the AUG, and there is no need to frighten ignorant people with this.
  7. Alexey RA
    Alexey RA 24 March 2021 14: 46
    0
    Quote: ccsr
    Well, you just compared - then there were no nuclear weapons, no intercontinental strategic missiles, and you propose to take this as an example?

    Yes. Because it is necessary to consider all aspects of the war at sea, and not rest only on direct strikes by the Navy / Navy against ground targets.
    The situation during the Cold War was similar to WWII: both sides were preparing for the Battle of the Atlantic, which largely determined the level of losses of our army in Europe.
    Quote: ccsr
    Do not fool me with this - you are not even aware that they airlifted troops to Europe during exercises, and no one even stuttered about the fleet.

    You are not even aware that the United States was able to deploy the POMCUS system for only three divisions. The rest were to be transferred from the United States with all the equipment - by sea.
    And about the teachings REFORGER-87, you are also not in the subject. After all, they were used to work out the "life-size" transfer and deployment of the III AK in Europe in a combined way: after landing, part of the l / s went for equipment to the POMCUS warehouses, part - to the ports, to wait for the arrival and unloading of MSC ships.
    Quote: ccsr
    Stop fantasizing - I can argue that this was not, if only because of the transience of the exchange of blows. Nafig in Europe AUG, if there were only one aircraft carrying nuclear weapons there were about a thousand and 5 thousand nuclear charges?

    A typical landlord's mistake: to consider his theater of operations as something completely isolated and self-sufficient. And the fleet - only as a means of direct strike.
    The Navy / Navy in the war in Europe is a means of pushing into the theater of operations, or vice versa, to prevent the transfer of divisions from the United States (except for three that fell into the POMCUS program). As well as new equipment and supplies.
  8. ccsr
    ccsr 24 March 2021 19: 39
    0
    Quote: Alexey RA
    The situation during the Cold War was similar to WWII: both sides were preparing for the Battle of the Atlantic, which largely determined the level of losses of our army in Europe.

    This theory was destroyed by Soviet naval commanders in order to justify the maintenance of a huge fleet, which, by and large, did not play a role in a short-term war, except for submarine missile carriers. They were talking nonsense, and our general secretaries believed in it. Although the groundmen also often lied, believing that we would dashingly ride across Europe, forgetting to say that everything there will be rolled into glass anyway and it makes no sense to keep a huge number of ground troops there.
    I do not want to blame only the naval, I just want to inform you that the Soviet top military leadership deliberately or foolishly put forward a theory of two wars, which most professionals did not believe in, from those who had an idea of ​​the real situation, and knew that the scenario would be completely different than in WWII.

    Quote: Alexey RA
    You are not even aware that the United States was able to deploy the POMCUS system for only three divisions. The rest were to be transferred from the United States with all the equipment - by sea.

    You are mistaken, because the warehousing program existed long before the withdrawal of American troops from Europe began, and even floating warehouses were being built:


    Quote: Alexey RA
    And about the teachings REFORGER-87, you are also not in the subject. But it was on them that the "life-size" transfer and deployment of the III AK in Europe was worked out in a combined way:

    By the way, do you even know that in the early nineties they had a million NATO troops in Europe, but what kind of army corps are you talking about, which would not have had time to turn around, because the war would have ended. There were eleven of them already deployed in the European theater of operations, so from his arrival the group did not really strengthen at all. Moreover, there were 4000 tanks and 4000 armored personnel carriers / infantry fighting vehicles in the POMCUS warehouses, and this is not for three divisions, as you are trying to imagine. So the Americans would have cost the transfer of personnel on BTA aircraft and leased from civilian airlines without the transfer of heavy equipment.
    Yes, with such knowledge, you only need to comment on the strategy of those years ...
    Quote: Alexey RA
    The Navy / Navy in the war in Europe is a means of pushing into the theater of operations, or vice versa, to prevent the transfer of divisions from the United States (except for three that fell into the POMCUS program). As well as new equipment and supplies.

    Do you seriously believe this? It looks like you obviously did not serve in the naval strategic forces, since you take this seriously.
  9. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
    20 March 2021 22: 32
    +3
    Quote: Bez 310
    Nope, I don’t know ... But it’s somehow strange that this NIR
    conducted by Nevskoe PKB (CDB) (with the involvement of
    various organizations), and conclusions were drawn
    in favor of this very Nesky PKB (TsKB),

    Sorry, but that doesn't even make for good conspiracy theories. Nevsky PKB was absolutely on the drum, whether to create helicopter carriers, TAVKR with VTOL aircraft, or someone else. This is not to mention the fact that the design bureau played not the first violin there.
    Quote: Bez 310
    I have a completely different question - what actions
    of our surface ships are planned in the zone
    actions of US carrier-based aircraft? Where is this zone
    and what kind of ships are they?

    Sorry, but all this is clearly stated in the article. Barents and Okhotsk seas + a certain radius from Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky. It is necessary to defend both surface ships (corvettes and frigates) and submarines and aviation, which are solving ASW missions in these areas. It will also be necessary to cover the strike groups working on the AUG.
  10. Bez 310
    Bez 310 21 March 2021 08: 43
    -1
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    It is necessary to defend both surface ships (corvettes and frigates) and submarines and aviation, which are solving ASW missions in these areas. It will also be necessary to cover the strike groups working on the AUG.

    It seems like everything goes smoothly, but there are some doubts ...
    I will not talk about the Barents Sea, NATO is doing well there with ground-based aircraft even without the AUG.
    Let's talk about the Far East. As far as I understand, the main task of the AUG is actions against our onshore facilities, and not the pursuit of our small ships, which, according to your statements, are solving some kind of "PLO tasks." What are these tasks, and where?
    If this is to ensure the exit of SSBNs, then these tasks are solved during the threatened period, and during hostilities, the AUG strikes at the basing point with cruise missiles. It is ridiculous to talk about the cover of "shock groups working on AUG", since we do not have such groups, there is simply nothing to assemble them from.
    As far as I understand, our main task is to prevent the AUG from reaching the line of application of missile defense and aviation, that is, at a distance of about 1000-1300 km from strategically important objects. This problem can only be solved by a joint strike by missile carriers and submarines, but we have no missile carriers, and even with submarines it’s tense ... What are we talking about? What is our aircraft carrier in the Sea of ​​Okhotsk? Yes, we have no modern minesweepers ... Okay, let's not talk about sad things ...
  11. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
    21 March 2021 09: 00
    +4
    Quote: Bez 310
    Let's talk about the Far East. As far as I understand, the main task of the AUG is actions against our onshore facilities, and not the pursuit of our small ships, which, according to your statements, are solving some kind of "PLO tasks." What are these tasks, and where?

    Are you kidding me? :))))) Do I rewrite the same thing for the fifth time? :)))))
    Quote: Bez 310
    If this is to ensure the exit of SSBNs, then these tasks are solved during the threatened period

    At the same time, during this very period, it is necessary to detect and be ready to destroy enemy submarines, for which it is necessary to provide a "network" of our submarines, NKs and PLO aircraft. And the enemy can strike at this network at any moment.
    Quote: Bez 310
    It's ridiculous to talk about the cover of "strike groups working on AUG", since we do not have such groups

    So keep quiet, the right word. In my article I am writing about what kind of fleet we NEED to solve certain problems. You tell me - about the one that is. Believe it or not, I know perfectly well what he is without your reminders. And I am writing about what he SHOULD BE in order to be able to solve the tasks set before him by the decree of our GDP
    Quote: Bez 310
    This task can only be solved by a joint strike by missile carriers and submarines.

    Which are most appropriate to apply under the cover of carrier-based aircraft
    Quote: Bez 310
    What is it all about?

    Try to re-read the article, maybe you will understand.
  12. Bez 310
    Bez 310 21 March 2021 09: 05
    -3
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    Try to re-read the article, maybe you will understand.

    No, sorry ...
    Judging by the state of affairs, I doubt that everything in our country will ever be so great that we will be able to build and maintain several AUGs. But you can dream ...
  13. ccsr
    ccsr 21 March 2021 10: 07
    -3
    Quote: Bez 310
    Judging by the state of affairs, I doubt that everything in our country will ever be so great that we will be able to build and maintain several AUGs. But you can dream ...

    Even if we have an economy like China or the United States, we don’t need AUG for nothing - all this outdated and costly weaponry is completely unnecessary for us, because we need to defend our territory, and not engage in the "era of great discoveries."
    Therefore, it is high time to give up dreams, especially since they come from people who do not understand well what the country's defense capability is, and at what price it comes to us.
  14. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
    21 March 2021 11: 20
    +4
    Quote: ccsr
    we don’t need AUG for nothing - these are all outdated and costly weapons that we do not need at all

    Yes, yes, aviation is a completely useless branch of the armed forces.
  15. Ryusey
    Ryusey 22 March 2021 11: 55
    -1
    Fairy-tale character).
  16. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
    21 March 2021 11: 20
    +3
    Quote: Bez 310
    Judging by the state of affairs, I doubt that everything in our country will ever be so great that we will be able to build and maintain several AUGs.

    Question. What's in the way? Please give a specific answer.
    Quote: Bez 310
    But you can dream ...

    What I have written is not dreams. There are tasks set by the government. To solve them, you need such a fleet. Such a fleet is either within our strength or beyond our strength. If it’s beyond our capacity, then we need to change the tasks.
  17. Bez 310
    Bez 310 21 March 2021 11: 25
    -2
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    Question. What's in the way? Please give a specific answer.

    I give a specific answer - the lack of money for
    construction and maintenance of a full-fledged AUG.
  18. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
    21 March 2021 14: 01
    +3
    Very good, thank you :)))) See you in the next article!
  19. Silhouette
    Silhouette 23 March 2021 20: 01
    +1
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    Question. What's in the way? Please give a specific answer

    1. State of the country's economy. During the heyday of the USSR, we could not build and operate a single full-fledged AUG. There was no basing system, there was not enough escort ships, there was no carrier-based aircraft, AWACS aircraft.
    2. The inability of the crew to fully master the ship and operate it.
  20. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
    24 March 2021 07: 06
    +1
    Quote: Silhouette
    ... The state of the country's economy. During the heyday of the USSR, we could not build and operate a single full-fledged AUG.

    Not "could not," but "did not want". "Couldn't" is when they tried to build, but failed. We didn’t want to - all the desire of the fleet to get classic aircraft carriers was shattered by the imagination of those in power. They believed in palliatives, then in VTOL.
    Quote: Silhouette
    The inability of the crew to fully master the ship and operate it.

    In the USSR, we operated TAVKRs without any problems, which were larger than the French AV Clemenceau type, and significantly surpassed it in terms of the range of weapons.
  • squid
    squid 20 March 2021 18: 42
    -4
    Quote: Bez 310
    Who will attack them, and where?

    You have lagged behind life. Immediately, at the suggestion of Timokhin, a whole concept was developed, how the armada of enemy AUGs, with the beginning of the war, will treacherously rush to our shores, hunt for RPKSN and other important targets, coastal aviation will not have time to help, and it is expensive to maintain it on the coast, so urgently build aircraft carriers. Especially to cover the Sea of ​​Okhotsk.
    1. Bez 310
      Bez 310 20 March 2021 18: 46
      -2
      Quote: squid
      You have lagged behind life.

      Thank you.
      But I asked questions to the author of the article,
      and it is from him that I would like to receive
      the answers.
    2. timokhin-aa
      timokhin-aa 20 March 2021 23: 46
      0
      You have lagged behind life. Immediately, with the filing of Timokhin


      Do you have a pain or something? laughing
    3. antivirus
      antivirus 21 March 2021 00: 40
      0
      as a civilian I read spitting at each other - and I am surprised-
      -How many cows do you allow to keep for milk and meat in the Russian Federation? or a pension of 12-15 tr at 65 years old.
      building a fleet, different views are one thing, but the life of the hinterland (its absence) is the same, money is one.
      even if the GDP gives dough to AB - how to feed the children? whose milk? from NATO warehouses dry, as in the 90s ???????
      see the real situation of the country in the world. and get ready to fight not according to science - but for the conditional aunt Manya the milkmaid.
      razdraj in brains - will the Kremlin and other symbols protect? or the life of ordinary people (a huge country in the hinterland) that c. Manyu? - in this answer everything is laid.
      feeder against the patriot.

      if you protect money-assets, then it is easier to give up positions - to get out of the blow, as with Deripaska (all the same, he drives lumin to the US market).
      AV supporters mean "to enter paradise on someone else's hump". collective Deripaska does not ask him (them) to be protected by aircraft carriers.

      and to develop the fleet is not 10 units of AB for 100 VI.

      if it is necessary to give the regions work and the USC profit - not for military purposes - for socio-economic development, then part of the state system (MO) takes
      "useless" ships and awaits death in their holds and BP.
    4. Ryusey
      Ryusey 22 March 2021 11: 58
      -1
      Tell me about a sick person from a poverty-stricken hinterland, and from what device did you type this mountain of meaningless text.
  • squid
    squid 20 March 2021 17: 57
    -6
    Quote: Artyom Karagodin
    two research projects (one - under Kuznetsov, the other - already in the Gorshkov era), and both showed that without aircraft carriers, you can reliably cover your forces only at a distance of 300 km


    You still remember Peter I. Under Gorshkov, or even more so Kuznetsov, it may not have been possible. Now all AUG and in general all large NKs, when deploying a modern satellite constellation, will be tracked from Norfolk itself. And nothing will prevent you from removing your NKs from their path or sending out base aircraft in advance. The combat radius and combat load of aircraft (at least multi-role fighters) have also changed a lot. As well as the launch range of anti-ship missiles, including aircraft or coastal ones.
  • Vladimir1155
    Vladimir1155 20 March 2021 19: 01
    -2
    Quote: Artyom Karagodin
    So there is no need to refute Timokhin, try to refute the results of the R&D "Order".

    I know how custom nir is made ... whatever you please justify,
  • Vladimir1155
    Vladimir1155 20 March 2021 18: 43
    -5
    Quote: squid
    absurd Timokha's fantasies, which, due to the lack of refutation (and smart people do not like to argue with idiots, preferring to pass by), have overgrown a circle of followers on the topvarchik.

    They need an aircraft carrier. in the sea of ​​Okhotsk ... facepalm.

    I wonder where they are going to stick an aircraft carrier in the Sea of ​​Okhotsk? there is nowhere to put even 1155, ... only in Magadan ...
    1. squid
      squid 20 March 2021 18: 49
      -4
      Quote: vladimir1155
      I wonder where they are going to stick an aircraft carrier in the Sea of ​​Okhotsk? there is nowhere to put even 1155, ... only in Magadan ...

      Life will make you not so razkryachshis ... "Dear Timokhin" figured out how an enemy airplane will find in 15 minutes by the Radar Method all our rocket launchers, so that they immediately float up to the top of their belly. Coastal aviation, if something does not have time to help, so that only the aircraft carrier from above will save the country's nuclear shield. Better two. In every fleet. You need to somehow justify their existence, right?
      All this in all seriousness ...
      1. Vladimir1155
        Vladimir1155 20 March 2021 19: 03
        -2
        Quote: squid
        You need to somehow justify their existence, right?
        All this in all seriousness ...

        it is a religious sect of aircraft carrier witnesses, they have a pagan idol
    2. Ivanchester
      Ivanchester 20 March 2021 21: 28
      +1
      Quote: vladimir1155
      where are they going to thrust an aircraft carrier in the Sea of ​​Okhotsk?

      You can base it in Vladivostok. The passage to the Sea of ​​Okhotsk will take very little time.
      1. Vladimir1155
        Vladimir1155 20 March 2021 21: 29
        -2
        10 km from the Japanese coast, or tsushima? I will say more that the war is over until he reaches, ... does not reach .... the Japanese will sink him from the coastal guns and by the way .... and in Vladivostok, that is, he has a berth? side merchants?
        1. Ivanchester
          Ivanchester 21 March 2021 11: 57
          0
          For a long time I suspected that you are a subtle connoisseur of geography, but you pleasantly surprised me with Tsushima ...
          There is no pier, but its construction will still be less difficult than the construction of AB itself, if it comes to that someday.
      2. Silhouette
        Silhouette 23 March 2021 20: 04
        0
        Quote: Ivanchester
        You can base it in Vladivostok

        At the Seaport?
  • Bashkirkhan
    Bashkirkhan 20 March 2021 06: 07
    +10
    I liked the publication, dear Andrey described everything in an interesting and fascinating way, as one of the best authors on the site, everything is readable in one breath. In my humble opinion, the Russian fleet is in dire need of infrastructure, including dry docks for the repair of large ships and modern berths. Communications should be laid in the parking lot: to provide ships with water, high-pressure air, electricity, fuels and lubricants. The Soviet navy traditionally had problems with infrastructure. By 1143.1, the same 4 / 1991 were brought to the USSR Navy to a completely killed, incapable of combat, state due to the fact that not one of the ships did not even have a decent "wall" in the basing places and was constantly on the roads, killing the motor resource. The heavy aircraft-carrying cruiser "Admiral Kuznetsov" constantly stands at the 35th shipyard, because it has nowhere else to stand, it needs a berth for it, it needs a separate boiler room and a separate substation, a turbo-compressor shop, a large high crane on the berth, an entrance for at least large-sized wheeled vehicles, and even for the railway.
    In addition, the Admiral Kuznetsov heavy aircraft-carrying cruiser does not have a dry dock, because the communists have not built it in 70 years. After the rotted Swedish floating dock PD-2018 turned into a reef during a dock operation in 50, it suddenly became clear that the heavy cruiser had nowhere to dock. At the moment, at 35 SRZ in Murmansk, reconstruction and technical re-equipment of a 2-chamber dry dock is being carried out into a single-chamber version with new dimensions of the dry dock chamber 332,5 x 70 (60) x 17,55 m.Without this dry dock, it is impossible to return a heavy cruiser into operation.
    1. hydrox
      hydrox 20 March 2021 08: 23
      +5
      A material has just leaked on TV about the arrest of the management of 10 SRZ (the one that Kuzya was repairing) for stealing gigantic sums from Kuzi's repairs.
      Putin does not have his own statistics on how much money is stolen from state defense orders carried out by privatized factories - maybe this case will be the last straw that spills tea on the tablecloth and MAKES Ave. to nationalize the defense industry.
      1. Doccor18
        Doccor18 20 March 2021 08: 59
        +6
        WILL MAKE Ave. nationalize the defense industry.

        Do you think it will help a lot?
        Rostec, Rusnano, Roskosmos, and many other government agencies do not really shine with production records.
        1. Sergej1972
          Sergej1972 20 March 2021 13: 11
          +1
          And what about Rosatom? He seems to be doing well.
        2. hydrox
          hydrox 20 March 2021 13: 41
          -1
          Rosnana is run by a liberoid (they are thieves by definition of personal freedom): RosKosmos is run by a journalist, who is also not a techie or a pro, Rosneft is a general, apparently, with such control, it’s not painful to steal (or maybe not a thief by nature).
          And where the Pr-t will take the techies-managers-natural scientists - so much earlier it was necessary for Furs and Lebanon (?) To put up against the wall and not introduce an idiobolonkovskaya system of training
      2. Vladimir1155
        Vladimir1155 20 March 2021 18: 46
        -2
        Quote: hydrox
        stealing gigantic sums from Kuzi repairs.

        is it really incomprehensible that such vessels are being built only for theft, it is unparalleled and there is nothing to compare the price with, for the frigates of the nuclear submarine there are world data on prices, but not for Kuzi, steal as much as you can carry
  • sergo1914
    sergo1914 20 March 2021 06: 10
    +6
    IMHO
    Too different tasks for different locations
    1) far zone
    2) North (from Murmansk to Chukotka)
    3) Pacific zone
    4) puddles (Baltic and Black)
    5) Caspian
    6) other (I don't know what, what would have been, reserve category)
    Well, think differently for each category.
    When something global does not work out, it is something that is decomposed (divided into small components). Maybe it makes sense to divide the zones and see what is needed for each zone (ships / aircraft / shore / target designation ...)?
    Once again, IMHO. I do not impose anything. Just expressing a point of view.

    PS Good article. No hysterics, whipping up and insulting opponents. Even somehow unusual. About the fleet and feces, no one throws in the opposite direction.
    1. Doctor
      Doctor 20 March 2021 09: 45
      0
      Too different tasks for different locations

      How about poor Americans?
      From Boston to Miami and from Seattle to San Diego - everything is in full view!

      And also Alaska, almost undisguised and disgusting Cuba in the underbelly, from where and look at Orleans or Houston Fidels will land!

      And for everything about everything, you have a Monroe-type corvette with a 57 mm cannon, spin as you like. laughing



      And then there is Hawaii and others ...
      1. sergo1914
        sergo1914 20 March 2021 09: 56
        +1
        Quote: Arzt
        Too different tasks for different locations

        How about poor Americans?
        From Boston to Miami and from Seattle to San Diego - everything is in full view!

        And also Alaska, almost undisguised and disgusting Cuba in the underbelly, from where and look at Orleans or Houston Fidels will land!

        And for everything about everything, you have a Monroe-type corvette with a 57 mm cannon, spin as you like. laughing



        And then there is Hawaii and others ...


        I understood the meaning. But, as I see it, the pictures are still different. And the tasks are different. And the enemy is in the zones. We don't go that far. We would have to protect ours.
        IMHO.
        1. Doctor
          Doctor 20 March 2021 10: 24
          +2
          I understood the meaning. But, as I see it, the pictures are still different. And the tasks are different. And the enemy is in the zones. We don't go that far. We would have to protect ours.
          IMHO.

          We with them just understand naval war differently.
          Here it is stated.



          The main idea is that there are two lines of defense at sea, one passes through our bases, and the other - along the enemy bases.

          It makes no sense to cover the entire US coast with corvettes, you need to put a naval base in Odessa (allies!), And control-tonify the Russian Black Sea Fleet from there! laughing

          We perceive this as aggression, and this is defense on distant lines. Pearl Harbor was bombed, and Los Angeles is whole! wink
          1. sergo1914
            sergo1914 20 March 2021 11: 04
            0
            Quote: Arzt
            It makes no sense to cover the entire US coast with corvettes, you need to put a naval base in Odessa (allies!), And control-tonify the Russian Black Sea Fleet from there!


            The logistics are crazy. Yes, and the option of a landing or an attack by the forces of the Black Sea Fleet of the American coast is presented ... but in no way is it. They know how to count money. So the goal is different. Here's a preemptive strike on our bases is more believable.
            1. Doctor
              Doctor 20 March 2021 11: 22
              +7
              The logistics are crazy. Yes, and the option of a landing or an attack by the forces of the Black Sea Fleet of the American coast is presented ... but in no way is it. They know how to count money.

              Of course not. BSF IS CONNECTED.
              So the goal is different. Here's a preemptive strike on our bases is more believable.

              No, the goal is the same. Defense of the United States. Just on the distant approaches.

              Ideally (as Corbett teaches) - blockade or humiliation of the enemy fleet in its bases.
              Corfu
              Sinop.
              Pearl Harbor.
              The Germans on the Black Sea in the Second World War were driven to Batumi.
              An attempt to blockade ALL England.
              Etc.

              A blocked fleet is a dead fleet.

              This is how the maritime powers think. And we think overland, so nothing is danced. Thinking about how many corvettes are needed to hide in Barents or Okhotsk is the thinking of an Odessa fisherman who wants to hide the scow from the storm.

              A sailor must have a pirate mindset. am
              1. Winnie76
                Winnie76 20 March 2021 12: 28
                +2
                Quote: Arzt
                Thinking about how many corvettes it takes to hide in the Barents or Okhotsk is the thinking of an Odessa fisherman who wants to hide the scow from the storm.

                I agree. It is necessary to create a threat to the American bases with the same Ash. The Americans will not have enough resources to cover everything. They will overstrain. And they will not have time to climb into Kamchatka or Barents. `` Cover your own ''
                1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                  20 March 2021 18: 19
                  +3
                  Quote: Winnie76
                  I agree. It is necessary to create a threat to the American bases with the same Ash.

                  Well, yes, Severodvinsk alone, of course, blocks all bases right away laughing
                  You don't understand what you are saying. Our nuclear submarines near enemy bases are doomed. They will simply be destroyed, and very quickly. This time. Second. By the time hostilities begin, the main forces of the US Navy have long since left these very bases, they will be deployed in Mediterranean, off the coast of Norway, etc. And what will be the use of this blockade? Since the time of Corbett, naval art has progressed in such a way that you cannot discern, and you are still operating with the logic of steam fleets
                  In general, understand one simple thing. We have nothing to tie up the enemy's fleet at its bases, and we will have nothing, because in terms of fleet size, we will always lose miserably. You need to set achievable goals
                  1. Doctor
                    Doctor 20 March 2021 22: 34
                    0
                    You don't understand what you are saying. Our nuclear submarines near enemy bases are doomed. They will simply be destroyed, and very quickly.

                    All are doomed. Prince of Wells, Tirpitz, Yamato ...
                    It is important whether you have time to take at least one with you before you leave, or you stupidly die in the base.

                    War is a chess game with pieces exchange. The ending is important.
                  2. Doctor
                    Doctor 20 March 2021 22: 38
                    0
                    By the time hostilities begin, the main forces of the US Navy have long since left these very bases, they will be deployed in Mediterranean, off the coast of Norway, etc. And what will be the use of this blockade?

                    They will not go to any Norway. If at least Borey alone hangs 200 miles from Miami, all the forces of the fleet will be sent to search for him.
                    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                      21 March 2021 00: 00
                      +3
                      Quote: Arzt
                      They will not go to any Norway. If at least Borey alone hangs 200 miles from Miami, all the forces of the fleet will be sent to search for him.

                      Will not. Dot.
                      This is a fact from the field of confrontation between the USSR and the United States at sea.
                  3. Doctor
                    Doctor 20 March 2021 22: 42
                    +1
                    Since the time of Corbett, naval art has gone ahead in such a way that you cannot see, and you still operate with the logic of steam fleets

                    Strategically, the logic of the United States has not changed since the days of Ancient Rome. Keep the legion in Gaul or the Gauls will come to you. At sea too.

                    Or so: if you don’t want a Russian bear to come to your yard, guard it by the den. wink

                    It has recently passed - the Ames are arming Taiwan. Correctly. Let the Chinese be defeated by the Chinese. And in Seattle, everything is OK.
                  4. Doctor
                    Doctor 20 March 2021 22: 57
                    0
                    In general, understand one simple thing. We have nothing to tie up the enemy's fleet at its bases, and we will have nothing, because in terms of fleet size, we will always lose miserably. You need to set achievable goals

                    Of course there is nothing. And there will be nothing until we change the installation.

                    Given:
                    As a result of diplomatic negotiations between the Russian Federation and Colombia, an agreement was reached on the construction of two Russian naval bases - Cartagena (Atlantic) and Buenaventura (Tikhiy).
                    As well as the Russian Air Force base in the Pavarandosito area with a 3500 m runway and infrastructure for the Tu-160 regiment.

                    Now model - what kind of fleet does Russia need and how much Tu-160 do we need? laughing
                    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                      21 March 2021 00: 04
                      +1
                      Quote: Arzt
                      Now model - what kind of fleet does Russia need and how much Tu-160 do we need?

                      I'm even afraid to ask what the Tu-160 has to do with it. Are you going to base them in Colombia? wassat
                      1. Doctor
                        Doctor 21 March 2021 14: 21
                        0
                        I'm even afraid to ask what the Tu-160 has to do with it. Are you going to base them in Colombia? wassat

                        You see, the very possibility of this is ridiculous.
                        And the ams placed theirs in Norway and nothing, as it should be.
                        This is the difference in thinking.
                      2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                        22 March 2021 07: 09
                        +1
                        Quote: Arzt
                        You see, the very possibility of this is ridiculous.

                        Конечно.
                        Quote: Arzt
                        And the ams placed theirs in Norway and nothing, as it should be.

                        By itself:)))
                        Quote: Arzt
                        This is the difference in thinking.

                        Yeah :))) And that's what it is. I understand perfectly well that the United States can afford to transfer its stratobombers to Norway, because they are there - under the cover of all the power of NATO aviation. We, having sent the Tu-160 to Colombia, are actually giving them up to be devoured, since we have absolutely nothing to cover them there with. Any forces that we can place at one or two air bases near the United States will easily be suppressed by their air force in the first minutes of the conflict.
                        You are not. But you take on strategic topics
                      3. Doctor
                        Doctor 22 March 2021 21: 20
                        0
                        Yeah :))) And that's what it is. I understand perfectly well that the United States can afford to transfer its stratobombers to Norway, because they are there - under the cover of all the power of NATO aviation. We, having sent the Tu-160 to Colombia, are actually giving them up to be devoured, since we have absolutely nothing to cover them there with. Any forces that we can place at one or two air bases near the United States will easily be suppressed by their air force in the first minutes of the conflict.
                        You are not. But you take on strategic topics

                        You have chosen the strategy of a bear, who decided to sit out in a den. Of course, it's scary outside, hunters can kill. laughing

                        Change your thinking, become a crank bear, cannibal, trapping hunters in the forest.
                        Then they will have no time for the den.

                        Estimate the composition of forces and assets in Colombia, taking into account the cover.
                        Make a plan for the development of the Navy and the Navy Air Force based on this strategy. wink
                      4. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                        23 March 2021 06: 38
                        +1
                        Quote: Arzt
                        Estimate the composition of forces and assets in Colombia, taking into account the cover.

                        Unlike you, I figured it out. There, half of the RF Aerospace Forces will not do anything, just for the sake of reference. These bases are being removed "at once" by means at the disposal of the USA.
                        Quote: Arzt
                        Change your thinking

                        No thanks:)))))
                      5. Doctor
                        Doctor 23 March 2021 11: 20
                        0
                        Unlike you, I figured it out. There, half of the RF Aerospace Forces will not do anything, just for the sake of reference. These bases are being removed "at once" by means at the disposal of the USA.

                        Then unfold the chessboard, bring out the state baes in Norway at once. laughing
                      6. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                        23 March 2021 11: 37
                        0
                        Quote: Arzt
                        Then unfold the chessboard, bring out the state baes in Norway at once.

                        That is why I am not going to change my style of thinking to yours. You see, I know perfectly well that the forces of our fleet and air force are categorically insufficient to destroy bases in Norway, since in this direction the enemy has a great advantage.
                        You, without studying the composition of forces, are tempted by external analogies - they say, if the Americans can be based in Norway, then we can - in Colombia.
                        Sorry, but if the world champion in the barbell can lift the 264 kg barbell in the snatch, this does not mean at all that you can do it :)
                      7. Doctor
                        Doctor 23 March 2021 11: 52
                        0
                        That is why I am not going to change my style of thinking to yours.

                        Understand a simple thing, Russia is not in danger from the sea.

                        The north is under ice, the entire coast is practically uninhabited.

                        The East is uninhabited, even if they destroy the entire coastal area with Kamchatka, that's 3 million, we lost 25 in the Second World War without nuclear weapons and nothing.

                        And for the United States, coastal defense is vital, of key importance.

                        It is necessary to invest in diplomacy in order to create a full-fledged naval base in Cuba and in the aircraft in general.

                        And the fleet should consist of nuclear submarines and NK raiders with cruise missiles on board.
                        Probably.
                        At this point, the specialists (including you) have cards in their hands.
                      8. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                        23 March 2021 12: 13
                        0
                        Quote: Arzt
                        Understand a simple thing, Russia is not in danger from the sea.

                        Except for several thousand cruise missiles and carrier-based aircraft? :)))) From the middle of the Barents Sea to Moscow - 2,2 thousand km, which is quite accessible for a modern cruise missile.
                        Quote: Arzt
                        And for the United States, coastal defense is vital, of key importance.

                        Only in non-nuclear war. And then a problem arises - in a non-nuclear war, we will not be able to inflict significant damage on their ports and naval base - a dozen SSGNs for this are categorically not enough. And in the nuclear one, their main naval base and ports will be covered anyway if we manage to strike.
                        Therefore, it makes no sense for them to re-mortgage and delay their fleet in the event of a non-nuclear war, and in the event of a nuclear war, their profit will be to inflict a disarming strike - incl. and SSBNs.
                      9. Doctor
                        Doctor 23 March 2021 12: 25
                        0
                        Except for several thousand cruise missiles and carrier-based aircraft? :)))) From the middle of the Barents Sea to Moscow - 2,2 thousand km, which is quite accessible for a modern cruise missile.

                        Everything is correct. In Barents, the main task of the PLO.
                        As I understand it, PLO aircraft, PLO NK, hunting submarines, a network of hydrophones with Skaty.
                        Not so much.
                      10. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                        23 March 2021 12: 37
                        0
                        Quote: Arzt
                        As I understand it, aircraft PLO, NK PLO

                        Which are carried out by the US carrier-based aircraft once or twice
                        Quote: Arzt
                        hunting submarines

                        Who without AB will have to act in conditions of unchecked work of foreign PLO aircraft
                    2. Doctor
                      Doctor 23 March 2021 12: 31
                      0
                      Only in non-nuclear war. And then a problem arises - in a non-nuclear war, we will not be able to inflict significant damage on their ports and naval base - a dozen SSGNs for this are categorically not enough. And in the nuclear one, their main naval base and ports will be covered anyway if we manage to strike.
                      Therefore, it makes no sense for them to re-mortgage and delay their fleet in the event of a non-nuclear war, and in the event of a nuclear war, their profit will be to inflict a disarming strike - incl. and SSBNs.

                      We cannot have a conventional war with the United States.
                      SSBNs in this war are perhaps an unnecessary part. Their work will be done by ground complexes.
                      And at the enemy shores, in the thin water, there should be a nuclear submarine with a CD.
                      And pull off the bulk of the US Navy forces.

                      The question is where the fleets will fight - on our shores or on theirs.
                    3. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                      23 March 2021 12: 40
                      0
                      Quote: Arzt
                      We cannot have a conventional war with the United States.

                      Does the USA know about this? :))))
                      Quote: Arzt
                      SSBNs in this war are perhaps an unnecessary part. Their work will be done by ground complexes.

                      The question is interesting, but regardless of the answer to it, in a nuclear war, the United States is completely unnecessary to delay the fleet to cover its own naval base and ports. They will still be destroyed by strategic nuclear forces if ours manage to fire a salvo, or they won't - if they fail. The fleet will not help and will not interfere here.
  • Winnie76
    Winnie76 20 March 2021 22: 58
    +1
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    Well, yes, Severodvinsk alone, of course, blocks all bases right away
    You don't understand what you are saying. Our nuclear submarines near enemy bases are doomed. They will simply be destroyed, and very quickly.

    Having on board Caliber with a radius of 2000 km, it is not necessary to approach the enemy base. It is quite enough to have three or four ash trees in the sea to keep the most important bases at gunpoint. In turn, this will require an order of magnitude larger forces from the Americans to counter the threat.
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    In general, understand one simple thing. We have nothing to tie up the enemy's fleet at its bases, and we will have nothing, because in terms of fleet size, we will always lose miserably. You need to set achievable goals

    In your opinion, is it more realistic to build a pair of aircraft carriers for the Pacific Fleet and the Northern Fleet? Strain the whole country, threaten a lot of time and an ocean of money. And then use the ships of the far sea zone in the near zone to `` ensure the deployment '' of SSBNs. Isn't it too wasteful to have a budget of 10% of the American one?
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      21 March 2021 00: 12
      +1
      Quote: Winnie76
      Having on board Caliber with a radius of 2000 km, it is not necessary to approach the enemy base. It is quite enough to have three or four ash trees in the sea to keep the most important bases at gunpoint. In turn, this will require an order of magnitude larger forces from the Americans to counter the threat.

      What threat? :))))) How are you going to scare them? :)))) Caliber? In a non-nuclear war, 32 Caliber is to spit and grind, well, damage the infrastructure of the base, it's okay. In the nuclear field, the Americans will get a much greater profit by looking for our SSBNs.
      Of course, certain forces will be attracted to ASW bases and the Atlantic, from this point of view, the SSGN threat makes sense - to force the enemy to split the forces. But the point is that their main forces will not be pulled back to search for our submarines in the Atlantic. The Americans were not going to do this even in the days of the USSR, when we could bring hundreds of nuclear submarines and diesel-electric submarines to the Atlantic and the Pacific. At the same time, the predecessor of the Caliber - Granat, was put into service back in 1984, and we had missile-carrying nuclear submarines and diesel-electric submarines capable of hitting a naval base before that.
      You are going to delay the US Navy to defend its bases with several Ash trees. Isn't it funny yourself?
  • antivirus
    antivirus 21 March 2021 00: 52
    0
    and this is defense on the distant lines. Pearl Harbor was bombed, and Los Angeles is whole!

    -This is including the placement of forces and the population and everything else - on the ocean coast - protection is required at xx km Los Angeles. or the firmament - in Moscow or Kater. Now the Kazakhs are happy (the psychology of the steppe inhabitants) - how good it was from the shipbuilding AV Outskirts - they drank all the juices in that fleet. they need camels and Arabian stallions for show-off.
    1. Doctor
      Doctor 21 March 2021 14: 31
      +1
      this including the deployment produces forces and population and everything else - on the ocean - protection is required at xx km of Los Angeles.

      Of course. All these "horrors" of protecting our coastline are nothing compared to the problems of the United States. It is impossible to cover up there, therefore they act ahead of the curve.
  • jonht
    jonht 20 March 2021 06: 12
    +3
    All of the above is ideal for us, but the gentlemen in the Navy seem to see everything differently. And it seems to me that they have no concept, no understanding, and even the tighter doctrine they see through their fingers ... Plus, the industry sat on their neck and hung their legs ...
    1. antivirus
      antivirus 20 March 2021 07: 42
      -3
      Can we create such a fleet technically? And is our economy able to “pull out” such expenses?

      - so as not to hang down and sit down - it is necessary to manage and feed it. from which office Frunzenskaya nab?
      only a single social and political force (VKPb-KPSS) could do this. the raskarya is visible to everyone. many people like it so much
    2. hydrox
      hydrox 20 March 2021 08: 25
      +1
      Quote: jonht
      Plus, the industry sat on their neck and dangled their legs ...

      It is not the industry that is to blame, but the private ownership of the State Defense Concerns
  • sleeve
    sleeve 20 March 2021 06: 13
    +4
    I would like to emphasize the "logistic" aspect that is not often mentioned in this discussion. It concerns the maneuver of forces in three theaters of operations at the expense of inland waterways. At present, the "weak point" in this system is the White Sea-Baltic Canal with its 4 meters of draft and 14 meters of width. However, taking into account the special means of wiring, it is able to ensure the maneuver of submarines and corvettes of the 20380 project, and of the MRK. The presence of such a "tool" of logistics makes it possible to build up light forces along the internal, relatively protected arteries. That is, on the face, albeit a weak, but available tool, allowing at least partially to neutralize the problem of division of fleets. That is, the low-tonnage fleet required to defend the coast may be able to quickly build up forces and replace losses in the event of a theoretical "local confrontation." Suppose in the Turkey issue the presence of additional RTOs and submarines can play an inconclusive role.
    1. Doccor18
      Doccor18 20 March 2021 09: 03
      +4
      I agree with you. But we do not have so many 20380, and even fewer submarines, so that they can be driven from one fleet to another.
      Two Su-30 regiments with anti-ship missiles will create a much more natural effect than 3-4 corvettes ...
      1. sleeve
        sleeve 20 March 2021 09: 08
        +1
        Undoubtedly. "Concentration" is such a tool - pure politics, well, plus "cooling heads". Like Erdogan to help with "strategic planning", they say, it is not clear how many submarines and corvettes the Russians will have in a week or two ... Plus our Baltic neighbors, who are now decisively superior to us in the inner basin, but you can overtake 3-6 ships (submarines, corvettes) and maneuver. And so ... Your truth, you need to remain a pragmatist and aviation for our land empire is the answer to almost all questions.
        1. Doccor18
          Doccor18 20 March 2021 09: 15
          0
          I love the sea and the fleet, I will love until the end of my days. And the aviation will never be able to solve the tasks that the fleet can. They should and can perfectly complement each other ...

          But beyond the Baltic ... there the MRA can solve a lot. More than any other Fleet.
          Quote: sleeve
          Plus our Baltic neighbors, who are now decisively superior to us in the inner basin, but you can overtake 3-6 ships ...
          1. sleeve
            sleeve 20 March 2021 11: 28
            0
            Strength in balance. But ... We are opposed by a long-arm fleet of large surface displacement. The landing by the forces of this fleet is a secondary function, although it is important in terms of a surprise strike (like, in Korea, the Myrikans near Incheon "turned the situation around"). The main problem is platforms-carriers. So our task is to "push" them further. In conditions when you cannot throw our cap on each of theirs' barrel, we need an operational club and so that in any of the hands it would be possible to intercept it quickly. There is only aviation. But it will go on like this, if we do not become insanely rich and from that the tower will not be torn down and dozens of our aircraft carriers and cruisers will not begin to plow the seas. And so it is quite possible to keep within two levels. The first is 150-200 miles under the direct air defense umbrella, the second is 800 miles under a removable air force umbrella. If you are in a compartment with an air defense missile system, then from there, from the second line, you can "push back" by another 300 miles based on the performance characteristics of the "Zircon". So a normal mixed "border" will come out, and in closed theaters it will be more spectacular. So for now there will be the first violin behind the wings. It's just cheaper. But without ships, no matter how ...
    2. timokhin-aa
      timokhin-aa 20 March 2021 11: 17
      +2
      ... At present, the "weak point" in this system is the White Sea-Baltic Canal with its 4 meters of draft and 14 meters of width. However, taking into account the special means of wiring, it is able to ensure the maneuver of submarines and corvettes of the project 20380,


      The 20380 has a draft of 7,5 meters.
      1. sleeve
        sleeve 20 March 2021 11: 30
        0
        5,45 in a dry case. That is, you will have to "lift" one and a half or two meters. But here it is doubtful that the maneuver will be carried out by corvettes. RTOs are quite enough. The main thing is the PL. "Transferring" 3-4 boats from theater to theater can solve a lot of problems. The truth, as mentioned earlier, is more political.
        1. timokhin-aa
          timokhin-aa 20 March 2021 11: 33
          +2
          Where did you get this information on the draft? In my opinion, this is not so. Therefore, they are built only where they can be taken out at least in the dock.
          1. sleeve
            sleeve 20 March 2021 11: 46
            0
            http://russianships.info/boevye/20380.htm
            although it would be necessary to thoughtfully "watch" the performance characteristics, despite the fact that on the run. I might be wrong.
    3. Vladimir1155
      Vladimir1155 20 March 2021 18: 51
      -1
      Quote: sleeve
      It concerns the maneuver of forces in three theaters of operations at the expense of inland waterways

      it is easier to form naval fleets only with ships of the third rank (here is the answer, what to do with MRKs), capable of redeployment, large surface ships are not needed there at all, and submarines are needed only for the Black Sea Fleet. It is necessary to move on to the scheme of two powerful ocean-going fleets Kamchatka + Barents
  • Jacket in stock
    Jacket in stock 20 March 2021 06: 15
    0
    I remembered how at school we had to write reports on the topic "materials of the XXVII Party Congress on ... the topic is such and such."
    The author approached the question systematically, wrote not about his own wishes, but how he understood the wishes of "the party and the government."
    And then once, and the prose of life
    Can we create such a fleet technically? And is our economy capable of

    And, as expected, in the next episode we will see the answer - we cannot technically, nor will there be enough money.
  • FRoman1984
    FRoman1984 20 March 2021 06: 59
    +2
    But nevertheless, an attempt to deploy a "network" of US surface ships in our near sea zone, in the immediate vicinity of ground airfields and coastal missile systems will be for them an extremely unreasonable form of mass suicide.

    We do not (yet) have the ability to close even the near sea zone. What, author, are we going to threaten / close? RTOs, corvettes and other troughs, which are without serious means of anti-aircraft defense and air defense? And our PLA is combat-ready?

    In my opinion of the layman, instead of the relict project 636.3 for the Pacific Fleet, those eternally limited funds would have been better spent on the modernization of torpedo 971 pikes. The benefits from them are many times greater, especially in terms of ensuring the SSBN watch and the creation of A2AD. But the General Staff thinks like an ass, the main thing for them is that the "caliber" is everywhere.
    1. antivirus
      antivirus 20 March 2021 07: 44
      -3
      without caliber everyone will be happy. happy for the outskirts - they have no calibers.
  • tasha
    tasha 20 March 2021 07: 01
    +1
    The people involved will shower me with naval slippers, but I am a land man, I can.
    The main goals of the state policy in the field of naval activities are:
    a) maintaining the naval potential at a level that ensures guaranteed deterrence of aggression against the Russian Federation from ocean and sea directions and the possibility of inflicting unacceptable damage to any potential adversary;
    In my understanding, at hour X, our SSBNs should fire a volley at the territory and large targets of a potential enemy. Missiles, torpedoes and anything else - the main thing is to inflict "unacceptable damage." Our carriers must be on alert within the reach of their weapons. And they can be covered by air defense and anti-aircraft defense ships with a certain number of anti-ship missiles on board.
    And in general, it is possible to keep a ship with a nuclear depth bomb or torpedo near the coast of the adversaries. We were attacked - to arrange a tsunami for the enemies ...
    b) maintaining strategic stability and international law and order in the World Ocean, including through the effective use of the Navy as one of the main instruments of the foreign policy of the Russian Federation;
    Roughly speaking - to drive pirates, to pursue a policy of gunners. For this, large ships are not needed. BDK, helicopter carrier (carrier of attack UAVs) + corvettes-frigates
    c) ensuring favorable conditions for the development and rational use of the natural resources of the World Ocean in the interests of the country's socio-economic development.
    Tankers, icebreakers, hydrographs and other ships and ships.

    So for now (!) I think we don't need big ships. We need a fleet that we can fully maintain, train and create decent conditions for the crews. Building aircraft carriers that will gobble up the entire military budget is not the right time. I recommend reading the book "Invincible" by S. Lem and recall a phrase from the memoirs of A. N. Krylov:
    "I gave Hanaforz a conversation between M. I. Kazi and my father in 1875.
    - Here you, Nikolai Alexandrovich, also point out the need for large battleships. Imagine, then, that if instead of five million infantrymen we had fed Goliath, as tall as a mountain, we would have clothed him in armor that no artillery can take, and he, the son of a bitch, just on the eve of the battle, gorged himself and had diarrhea. What would be the outcome of the battle? Need for the fleet and battleships, and large and small cruisers, and destroyers, and submarines - just to the extent of the actual need and the likely situation of war. "
    Therefore, thinking about what kind of fleet we need, I suggest starting with specific possible situations. For instance.
    Situation 1. In a certain area, pirate activity has increased. Our fleet began to defend shipping. What kind of ship is needed for this?
    Situation 2. There was a local conflict like a war 08.08.08. What tasks will the fleet perform and what ships are needed?
    Situation 3 ...
    1. timokhin-aa
      timokhin-aa 20 March 2021 11: 16
      +3
      In my understanding, at hour X, our SSBNs should fire a volley at the territory and large targets of a potential enemy. Missiles, torpedoes and anything else - the main thing is to inflict "unacceptable damage." Our carriers must be on alert within the reach of their weapons. And they can be covered by air defense and anti-aircraft defense ships with a certain number of anti-ship missiles on board.


      This is not enough.
      1. tasha
        tasha 20 March 2021 11: 37
        +1
        Please explain.
        a) maintaining the naval potential at a level that ensures guaranteed deterrence of aggression against the Russian Federation from ocean and sea directions and the possibility of inflicting unacceptable damage to any potential enemy
        The deterrent factor, I think, is the very possibility of inflicting unacceptable damage on a potential adversary. What do you mean by "unacceptable harm"?
        1. timokhin-aa
          timokhin-aa 20 March 2021 11: 40
          +5
          Unacceptable damage is damage that the enemy will not accept. The psychological (and therefore very fragile) category, which, unfortunately, underlies our strategic planning.

          But by "not enough" I meant something else.

          And they can be covered by air defense and anti-aircraft defense ships with a certain number of anti-ship missiles on board.


          This is not enough to cover up.
          1. tasha
            tasha 20 March 2021 11: 50
            0
            If it comes to the mutual infliction of "unacceptable damage", will you and I be all the same?
            Imagine Situation N. Enemies fire their missiles. We have to answer. How long does it take for our SSBNs and what cover to fire? Provided, of course, that our boat has not been destroyed yet? Those. the option "Execute order 666" (a sudden unprovoked attack) is not considered.
            1. timokhin-aa
              timokhin-aa 20 March 2021 11: 53
              +4
              If it comes to the mutual infliction of "unacceptable damage", will you and I be all the same?


              No, it will not. We must minimize our losses in any case, even when it comes to tens of millions killed.

              Imagine Situation N. Enemies fire their missiles. We have to answer. How long does it take for our SSBNs and what cover to fire?


              First, before the war, they will break into our BMZ with large forces, then they will reveal the entire underwater situation, then they will take SSBNs at gunpoint, then they will start.

              We simply do not have options other than "draw a red line, hit first when crossing".
              1. tasha
                tasha 20 March 2021 12: 02
                0
                No, it will not. We must minimize our losses in any case, even when it comes to tens of millions killed.
                The loss of what or who? And how does the presence of an aircraft carrier somewhere in the Sea of ​​Japan minimize losses from a strike on our cities?
                First, before the war, they will break into our BMZ with large forces, then they will reveal the entire underwater situation, then they will take SSBNs at gunpoint, then they will start.
                What will they start?
                As far as I understand, our SSBNs, which are not ours, are in any case at gunpoint. Therefore, for example, our boats are hiding under the ice. Not this way?
                Some time ago, there was an article on VO with a curious picture of the NATO IMVU.
                1. timokhin-aa
                  timokhin-aa 20 March 2021 22: 45
                  0
                  The loss of what or who?


                  People. This means that you cannot just sit with your fingers on the red button and wait for the enemy's attack.

                  And how does the presence of an aircraft carrier somewhere in the Sea of ​​Japan minimize losses from a strike on our cities?


                  The aircraft carrier does not have to be in the Sea of ​​Okhotsk. but even so .. a strong surface grouping will not allow the enemy to conduct an anti-submarine search operation. And identify all SSBNs.

                  What will they start?


                  The war will start.

                  As far as I understand, our SSBNs, which are not ours, are in any case at gunpoint. Therefore, for example, our boats are hiding under the ice. Not this way?


                  Not ours are not. Ours basically yes, but this can be quickly corrected, and so that in peacetime conditions the enemy will not be able to do anything.
                  But if their surface forces show up to us at BMZ, they will no longer hide and run to the ice, for those in the base.

                  Some time ago, there was an article on VO with a curious picture of the NATO IMVU.


                  That's why you have to hit first. And you have to be ready for this.
                  1. tasha
                    tasha 21 March 2021 05: 09
                    0
                    We simply do not have options other than "draw a red line, hit first when crossing".

                    That's why you have to hit first. And you have to be ready for this.

                    Already at least something is being concretized.
                    But I ask you to clarify - ready to be ready for the first strike a) if the ships cross a certain "red line" or b) open the mine covers, take off the launch vehicles and deploy launchers at the starting positions, or c) tension in relations has reached a maximum and our leadership has decided to apply preemptive strike?
                    I'm asking a little - I want to know how naval officers see the use of, for example, an aircraft carrier. Without general words, but in specific situations ...
              2. Vladimir1155
                Vladimir1155 20 March 2021 19: 17
                +1
                Quote: timokhin-aa
                First, before the war, they will break into our BMZ with large forces, then they will reveal the entire underwater situation, then they will take SSBNs at gunpoint, then they will start.

                you Alexander began to talk, ... they can break in only AFTER the start of the war and most likely even after the exchange of nuclear strikes ... so all your aircraft carriers are meaningless, suitable only for aggression against the Papuans
                1. timokhin-aa
                  timokhin-aa 20 March 2021 22: 47
                  +2
                  Former naval officer does not understand the difference between BMZ and thermal water? Blimey.
                  They already did this if anything - brazenly drove the ship search groups directly under the coast, without violating the state border and found all SSBNs in the given area.
                  In the Sea of ​​Okhotsk, this was the case in the 80s.
                  This is not a war, just no one forbids detecting.
                  1. Vladimir1155
                    Vladimir1155 20 March 2021 23: 04
                    +1
                    Quote: timokhin-aa
                    found all SSBNs in a given area

                    in my purely personal opinion, rpksn have two areas 1) base 2) ocean, so before you find it you need to set the area
                    1. timokhin-aa
                      timokhin-aa 20 March 2021 23: 20
                      0
                      This is how the SSBN went out into the ocean in 1985.
                      https://topwar.ru/29604-rpksn-k-258-proekta-667au-bs-3-mart-may-1985-goda.html
                      1. Vladimir1155
                        Vladimir1155 21 March 2021 00: 14
                        0
                        dear Alexander, your link is outdated, over the past 35 years boats have become quieter
                      2. timokhin-aa
                        timokhin-aa 21 March 2021 00: 40
                        +1
                        With low-frequency illumination, no difference is quieter or quieter. Physics, Vladimir.
                      3. Vladimir1155
                        Vladimir1155 21 March 2021 07: 04
                        0
                        Quote: timokhin-aa
                        With low-frequency illumination, no difference is quieter or quieter. Physics, Vladimir.

                        Now what is the end of the submarine fleet as a military force? This question is still open. The weakness of the described FOSS lies in their local application! and the ocean is big
                      4. timokhin-aa
                        timokhin-aa 21 March 2021 10: 03
                        +1
                        The submarine fleet will have to change a lot. And the ocean is big, but the sound in it diverges too far, alas
  • mark1
    mark1 20 March 2021 07: 31
    -2
    For the defense of the coast, just enough, in sufficient quantities, stationary objects such as airfields (and on the islands the same, because an unsinkable aircraft carrier is always better than a sunken one, no matter what they say against), stationary belts of bottom GAS, radar positions, air defense systems, stationary naval combat platforms and other, other ... The role of an aircraft carrier in coastal defense is, but it is not so significant and a classic aircraft carrier may well replace a hefty UDC (there will be more benefits). The role of PLAT in coastal defense? ... better a large number of underwater drones (if possible inexpensive) tied to stationary and ship-based PLO systems.
    Of course, this is exclusively my vision (according to many supporters of the linear corps de battalions, it is not correct)
    In general, everything needs a balance.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      20 March 2021 07: 53
      +7
      Quote: mark1
      The role of PLAT in coastal defense? ... better a large number of underwater drones (if possible inexpensive) tied to stationary and ship-based PLO systems

      It is fantastic. A fully autonomous drone is now impossible, and it will be possible to control it only by cable
      1. mark1
        mark1 20 March 2021 07: 54
        -7
        Andrey, we are talking about the prospects (!!!) and not about the current state
        And the prospects are not so distant.
        And we are not talking about a "fully autonomous drone" but about "tied to stationary and ship-based PLO systems"
        and it will be possible to control it only by cable
        - and this is a completely controversial point
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          20 March 2021 08: 03
          +5
          Quote: mark1
          And the prospects are not so distant.

          Well, the problem is that underwater communications are not even visible in the long term. As far as I know, all research and development work on this topic has failed miserably.
          1. mark1
            mark1 20 March 2021 08: 09
            -3
            AI will help us, as well as the absence of one type of communication is replaced by another and the tactics of using it.
            1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              20 March 2021 09: 08
              +5
              Quote: mark1
              AI to help us, as well as the absence of one type of communication is replaced by another

              There is no communication under water - only by cable :))) Sound underwater has a minimum radius, ultra-long waves do not allow transmitting the required amounts of information
              1. mark1
                mark1 20 March 2021 09: 11
                -4
                Another type of communication (not necessarily underwater) and tactics of using it. Don't forget about AI ...
                1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                  20 March 2021 12: 42
                  +2
                  Quote: mark1
                  Another type of communication (not necessarily underwater) and tactics of using it.

                  So you suggest using air drones? :))))
                  Quote: mark1
                  Don't forget about AI ...

                  There is no such AI that could replace the commander of the nuclear submarine, and it will not be there for a very, very long time. We cannot teach a car to drive on roads in automatic mode, this task is 100500 times easier than submarine warfare
                  1. mark1
                    mark1 20 March 2021 12: 52
                    -1
                    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                    So you suggest using air drones? :))))

                    Yes, even an orbital satellite constellation))))
                    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                    There is no such AI that could replace the commander of the nuclear submarine,

                    It all depends on what you want from the drone and its AI. If you are planning a battle according to all the rules of submarine warfare, then yes, if the task is to detect, obstruct, designate and target designation in a certain area (square), then this is another story)))
                    Yes, this path has been actively and actively traversed for a long time, if something is beaten, there is nothing eternal and permanent for eternal times))))
      2. bk0010
        bk0010 20 March 2021 10: 31
        0
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        A fully autonomous drone is now impossible, and it will be possible to control it only by cable
        Option, by the way: torpedoes roll. You can get work done right near the shore, but in peacetime - for sure.
    2. Doctor
      Doctor 20 March 2021 08: 48
      -1
      For the defense of the coast, just enough, in sufficient quantities, stationary objects such as airfields (and on the islands the same, because an unsinkable aircraft carrier is always better than a sunken one, no matter what they say against), stationary belts of bottom GAS, radar positions, air defense systems, stationary naval combat platforms and other, other ... The role of an aircraft carrier in coastal defense is, but it is not so significant and a classic aircraft carrier may well replace a hefty UDC (there will be more benefits). The role of PLAT in coastal defense? ... better a large number of underwater drones (if possible inexpensive) tied to stationary and ship-based PLO systems.
      Of course, this is exclusively my vision (according to many supporters of the linear corps de battalions, it is not correct)
      In general, everything needs a balance.

      We need to learn how to protect the coast from the United States.
      All life is concentrated in the coastal zones and no corvettes!

      Here it is, the balance! laughing
      1. mark1
        mark1 20 March 2021 08: 56
        -1
        Quote: Arzt
        We need to learn how to protect the coast from the United States.

        This is what should be ideally)))
  • demiurg
    demiurg 20 March 2021 07: 36
    +2
    Andrey, good afternoon. I read it, I do not blame it. hi But I don't quite agree either.
    1. To develop PLAT from scratch, with the current financial capabilities of the Russian Federation, this is twenty years before the first boat is at least. Here I agree with Timoshkin it is necessary to take what is, 636 or Cupid and screw the WOW-6. It is quite realistic to start modernization during the middle repair of the existing Varshavyanka in the nuclear submarine in five to seven years.
    2 is not a corvette. This is a frigate to replace 20380. Only small. A lot of such ships are not needed, 1135-12 pieces for the eyes. I hope they will start making a corvette on the basis of Karakurt. And that is exactly what should become massive, 15-2 dozen.
    3. To develop a new Tu-22 is unbearable and not really necessary. It's too highly specialized machine. If the range of the Su-34 is not enough, it is easier to develop refuelers based on existing vehicles, the same Il-76 or the future MS-12.
    4. Gorshkovs and SuperGorshkovs are needed for DMZ and aircraft carrier cover. The number is determined by the number of aircraft carriers.
    5. The most painful question is what to do with anti-submarine aviation. I don’t know how to replace the Il-38 and Ka-27. If the Ka-27 can at least restore production, the Il-38 is in general a disaster, even in the long term there is no donor.
    6. Aircraft carriers are definitely needed. And as for me, they will be better at the Pacific Fleet. And there they are needed. Two or three ,. displacement, air wing composition, ramp or catapult and its type are controversial.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      20 March 2021 08: 02
      +8
      Quote: demiurg
      To develop PLAT from scratch, with the current financial capabilities of the Russian Federation, it is twenty years before the first boat is at least. Here I agree with Timoshkin

      I outlined a need, and sketched out several ways to satisfy it. One of them is exactly what Timokhin and KLimov were talking about.
      Quote: demiurg
      20380 is not a corvette.

      Classification software - corvette
      Quote: demiurg
      Developing a new Tu-22 is unbearable and not really necessary.

      I would consider the sea version of the PAK YES
      Quote: demiurg
      Gorshkovs and SuperGorshkovs are needed for DMZ and aircraft carrier cover. The number is determined by the number of aircraft carriers.

      In the next article, I throw in the approximate composition of the fleets, as I see them.
      Quote: demiurg
      The most painful question is what to do with anti-submarine aviation. I don’t know how to replace the Il-38 and Ka-27. If the Ka-27 can at least restore production, the Il-38 is in general a disaster, even in the future there is no donor.

      The faster we do it, the faster we do it, it will only get worse to postpone further
      Quote: demiurg
      Aircraft carriers are definitely needed. And as for me, they will be better at the Pacific Fleet.

      I still think that they are needed in the Northern Fleet.
      1. demiurg
        demiurg 20 March 2021 08: 16
        +2
        It seemed immodest to call a ship with a displacement of 2200 tons as a frigate.
        PAK YES if I understand correctly, it will not be a consumable for the war, but a piece gold bullet. And for a raid, mass character is needed. And the estimated subsonic speed is not very suitable. And in the event of an attack on aircraft carriers, all PAK DAs must be in the air with the X-101 en route to the United States.
        Development of a new aircraft to replace the Il-38 from scratch, again, this is 15-20 years. The only option I see is the Tu-204. Such a replacement for myself. Or MS-21.
    2. squid
      squid 20 March 2021 18: 10
      0
      Quote: demiurg
      Aircraft carriers are definitely needed. And as for me, they will be better at the Pacific Fleet. And there they are needed. Two or three ,. displacement, air wing composition, ramp or catapult and its type are controversial.

      For what tasks do you need aircraft carriers?
  • Konnick
    Konnick 20 March 2021 08: 31
    0
    A complex topic and one article, as the author correctly says, is indispensable. I would also mention the articles - "Anti-aircraft missile systems on submarines: the inevitable evolution of the submarine" and "On the border of two environments. Diving ships: history and prospects" by Andrey Mitrofanov. But this is all in the future, and the reality rests on the power plants.
  • Bez 310
    Bez 310 20 March 2021 08: 42
    0
    Such an article ... uneven ...
    With the use of some imported concepts,
    type A2 / AD, which in our textbooks are not
    are used.
    Well, okay, I won't talk about the whole Fleet,
    remember about the MPA. The slogan slipped through the article
    - MPA needs to be revived, but aircraft for
    it has not been invented yet. Hence several
    questions - what tasks will be performed
    "revived" MRA, in which directions
    and borders, by what means of destruction?
    1. tone
      tone 20 March 2021 10: 01
      +1
      When will you write the article ?! How would you like to act for the revival of the MPA! I hope I can wait, thanks!
      1. Bez 310
        Bez 310 20 March 2021 11: 16
        -1
        Quote: tone
        When will you write your article?

        Most likely never.
        There is no point in wasting time and energy.
        1. timokhin-aa
          timokhin-aa 20 March 2021 11: 35
          +10
          It makes sense. Society needs adequate professional assessments of everything that happens and what to do about it.
          Don't underestimate the power of public opinion. Deputies and admirals and ministers are subject to it.
          1. Nemchinov Vl
            Nemchinov Vl 25 March 2021 17: 01
            0
            Quote: timokhin-aa
            Don't underestimate the power of public opinion. Deputies and admirals and ministers are subject to it.
            apparently, they are not very susceptible ... the fleet contracts not exactly what it needs, but rather what the USC is pushing for it.
    2. timokhin-aa
      timokhin-aa 20 March 2021 11: 34
      +3
      Hence several
      questions - what tasks will be performed
      "revived" MRA


      With this, everything is clear - the destruction of surface ships. With the rest of the questions, yes.
    3. Svetlana
      Svetlana 20 March 2021 12: 54
      -2
      Quote: Bez 310
      The slogan slipped through the article
      - MPA needs to be revived, but aircraft for
      it has not been invented yet
      Instead of airplanes, thermal unmanned stratospheric airships with an onboard nuclear power plant can be used.



      Takeoff of the airship-saucer and mooring - with the help of a chalka - a rope with a loop at the end, which is put on the mooring bollard of the rope. During takeoff, a disk airship with wings is spun by electric fans around the vertical axis of the disco airship up to a frequency of 7 revolutions / min (the circumferential speed of the ends of the blades is 173 km / h). The airship takes off, but is tied with a rope - a mooring rope to the ground, the rope is unwound with a winch. The payload nacelle is fixed under the shell on thrust bearings and does not rotate.
      Upon reaching a safe flight altitude (30..100m), the mooring lines are disconnected from the berthing bollards, then they are reeled off with a winch onto the airship. When landing, the airship hovers over the landing site, lowers down the mooring end of the rope with a loop at the end.
      The mooring line is thrown by the ground crew and wound onto the berth bollards. After securing the mooring line, the electric winch on the disco airship winds the rope onto the drum and the airship is smoothly pulled to the ground by the mooring rope.
      At the equator of the airship saucer, 3..4 landing gear wheels are installed so that when the axis of rotation of the saucer is tilted, its electric fans at the equator do not touch the ground upon landing.
      After deflation of the shell, the contact with the ground through the exhaust clanan occurs by wheels located at the equator of the airship saucer.
  • vladcub
    vladcub 20 March 2021 08: 45
    0
    "can our economy" be able to pull out "such expenses"? I would formulate a little differently:
    1) is there an understanding of the need?
    2) technical and economic component: a) can we technically? b) Will the economy allow?
    The main thing is the first question. If there is an understanding of the need, then there will be solutions
  • Doccor18
    Doccor18 20 March 2021 08: 52
    +3
    Andrey, thanks for the article hi
    About the fleet that we need ...

    I agree with almost everything written in the article. However, there are doubts. And they are in reality the implementation of all programs.
    In fact, you need to build: 3 aircraft carrier naval systems (of decent size) and recreate the carrier-based aviation (taking into account the fact that there were no carrier-based AWACS, electronic warfare and PLO aircraft at all in our fleet), a new series (at least 20 units) of modern nuclear submarines (small in displacement, but having the performance characteristics of the GAK and weapons are better than those of the enemy), a new type of missile-carrying bomber, of which there should also be a lot ...
    And besides: a series of 12 destroyers (10 kt each), a series of frigates (5 kt.), A large series of PLO corvettes (2 kt.), And the continuation of the implementation of the 955A and 885M programs ...
    This is all logical, but is IT real?
    Is this really all for the current country? A country that for 30 years has not been able to provide the fleet with a modern torpedo, a normal corvette (and not a galaxy of MRK / MAK / peredokorvetov projectors).
    Everything that you wrote is an almost ideal scheme, but in the current reality it is utopian, unfortunately ...
    In my humble opinion, until Russia takes the path of its all-round industrial development (as in the USSR), there will not be that ideal fleet that you described. It is necessary to continue the series: 22350, 22800 (with Pantsir), 885M and 955A. And build as many of them as possible. And to transmit MRA to the maximum of the SU-30, the more the better. I do not touch on weapon systems (and I have already written so much). And this is for the next 10-15 years.
    And there (if "the second Peter I" rises at the head of the country) we will return to your plan ...
    1. Konnick
      Konnick 20 March 2021 09: 07
      +3
      In fact, you need to build: 3 aircraft carrier naval systems (decent size)

      That's a decent size, I don't know how it is now, but in the 90s we had only 5 pilots who knew how to land a plane on the deck and all of them were awarded the title of Hero of Russia - T.A. Apakidze, V.V. Dubovoy, I.S. Kozhin, I.I. Bohonko, P.P. Kretov.
      1. Doccor18
        Doccor18 20 March 2021 09: 08
        +5
        Exactly.
        Ever since Soviet times, I read that there are fewer deck pilots than cosmonauts ...
        1. timokhin-aa
          timokhin-aa 20 March 2021 11: 14
          +2
          This was not the case in Soviet times.
  • BAI
    BAI 20 March 2021 09: 09
    -4
    Russia now needs a new class of ships, especially in the Black Sea. Ejector. Large displacement, with a very strong hull, capable of pushing enemy ships out of territorial waters without the use of weapons.
    А
    Decree of the President of the Russian Federation of July 20, 2017 No. 327 "On approval of the Fundamentals of State Policy of the Russian Federation in the field of naval activities for the period up to 2030"

    - about nothing. Failed GPV, and the Decree will fail. Moreover, they do not remember him publicly anywhere. Nobody will demand a report on implementation.
    In reality, only supply vessels will be built from it, the vital necessity of which was shown by Syria. But supply vessels are not warships. A battle is a ship, a merchant is a ship. And even in the Decree the "ship" is used.
    1. Boris55
      Boris55 20 March 2021 09: 22
      +1
      Quote: BAI
      Ejector. Large displacement, with a very strong hull, capable of pushing out enemy ships

      Drive a couple of icebreakers from the Arctic to the Black Sea and the question is closed. laughing
    2. timokhin-aa
      timokhin-aa 20 March 2021 11: 14
      +4
      Russia now needs a new class of ships, especially in the Black Sea. Ejector. Large displacement, with a very strong hull, capable of pushing enemy ships out of territorial waters without the use of weapons.


      Aren't you funny writing this?
      1. BAI
        BAI 20 March 2021 15: 04
        -2
        Aren't you funny writing this?

        Absolutely not funny. Moreover, it has already happened, if anyone has forgotten.
        1. timokhin-aa
          timokhin-aa 20 March 2021 22: 58
          0
          And it's funny to me.

          In fact, this is not what is needed, but courtesy visits with ordinary warships, that's all.
          Did you have FONOPS with us? No question, we will conduct it with you.
          It will be possible to cure the "partners" very quickly.
    3. Cherry Nine
      Cherry Nine 20 March 2021 12: 49
      0
      Quote: BAI
      Ejector. Large displacement, with a very strong hull, capable of pushing enemy ships out of territorial waters, without the use of weapons.

      1. timokhin-aa
        timokhin-aa 20 March 2021 22: 58
        0
        An atomic armored ram must be done
        1. Cherry Nine
          Cherry Nine 20 March 2021 23: 12
          0
          Quote: timokhin-aa
          An atomic armored ram must be done

          Type "Eyvstaviy".

          Well, everything is better than the notorious destroyer "Leader" with the aircraft carrier "Storm".
          1. Mooh
            Mooh 22 March 2021 22: 39
            +1
            And before that they said Koptsov, this Koptsov, and he turns out to be ahead of his time. Even when he offered, but now it was needed and no :)))
  • sleeve
    sleeve 20 March 2021 09: 10
    0
    Speaking about we can, we cannot take into account the current state of the economy and capacities and, in addition, the factor that they have dealt with them since 2009 so tightly. How things will change by 2030 is not clear. And it makes no sense to talk about the ocean-going fleet before. By that period, it is necessary to bring up the small fleet and aviation.
  • SVD68
    SVD68 20 March 2021 10: 08
    +1
    I was looking forward to this article. But alas ...
    I'll make a reservation right away, I am a supporter of the classic ideas of naval warfare: Mahen, Gorshkov, etc. Therefore, I consider the ideas of the "young school" about the sufficiency of mosquito forces and aviation to be harmful, and such forces by themselves, not in a balanced fleet, are useless.

    However, there is another harmful idea - the protection of the NSNF by the fleet.
    The idea itself seems obviously reasonable. However, first of all, it is unrealizable. We have too few SSBNs on alert at any given time. And we cannot solve this problem in any way - neither increase KOH by 2-3 times, nor increase the number of SSBNs by the same 2-3 times. To create a fleet capable of protecting our SSBNs from an attack by the US Navy (and it is only necessary to protect our NSNF from them) is also a chimera - they will have enough strength to simultaneously tie up our fleet in combat and destroy our NSNF. Moreover, they will be the first to deliver such a blow.
    Secondly, the idea of ​​defending SSBNs distorts the thinking of our politicians and admirals. In general, as the name implies, the navy is intended for war at sea. But there is no NSNF. In fact, SSBNs are ships for peacetime (when it is impossible to attack the enemy). So our fleet will turn into a peacetime fleet, capable only of sacrificing itself to win minutes for the NSNF.

    It is necessary to abandon the idea of ​​defending the NSNF by the fleet. The fleet is needed to conquer supremacy at sea.
    And the problem of stability of the NSNF forces can be solved either as the Americans, i.e. by domination at sea, or by transferring them to a place where, in principle, there will be no enemy submarines and PLO aircraft, i.e. to inland waters (possibly to the western part of the White Sea).
    1. squid
      squid 20 March 2021 18: 23
      +3
      Quote: SVD68
      It is necessary to abandon the idea of ​​defending the NSNF by the fleet. The fleet is needed to conquer supremacy at sea.
      And the problem of stability of the NSNF forces can be solved either as the Americans, i.e. by domination at sea, or by transferring them to a place where, in principle, there will be no enemy submarines and PLO aircraft, i.e. to inland waters (possibly to the western part of the White Sea).


      The White Sea, especially its part, is too small an area, moreover, close to the external borders. In which case, successfully overlapped by NATO forces in Scandinavia or the Barents Sea - as if several destroyers in an hour X did not cover the SLBMs taking off in the booster section with anti-missiles or some promising lasers.
      But in general, the idea peddled here by many to keep aircraft carriers in the Sea of ​​Okhotsk to cover the missile forces (otherwise the basic aviation will not have time) is, of course, fierce delirium. Basic aviation will be enough to repel or at least delay any enemy air raid until the missiles are launched. If, at all, such a thing will have time to take place in the tens of minutes that an exchange of nuclear strikes takes place. Another thing is enemy submarines, capable of "landing on the tail" of our boats in advance and destroying them on command. This requires a developed anti-submarine warfare, which means anti-submarine aircraft and ships with anti-submarine capabilities, such as corvettes / frigates.
      1. SVD68
        SVD68 21 March 2021 08: 31
        -1
        Quote: squid
        The White Sea, especially part of it, is too small an area, moreover, close to the external borders

        In general, I am in favor of placing a special-purpose SSBN on Ladoga and the Caspian Sea.
        The White Sea is the idea of ​​Andrey from Chelyabinsk.
        BUT Which option to choose cannot be decided logically. Only by calculation.

        Quote: squid
        Another thing is enemy submarines, capable of "landing on the tail" of our boats in advance and destroying them on command. Here we need a developed anti-submarine warfare, which means anti-submarine aviation and ships with anti-submarine capabilities, such as corvettes / frigates.

        Alas, but even so the problem cannot be solved. Because in peacetime, you cannot attack enemy ships. And those can easily pass into the Sea of ​​Okhotsk.
    2. Vladimir1155
      Vladimir1155 20 March 2021 19: 33
      0
      Quote: SVD68
      It is necessary to abandon the idea of ​​defending the NSNF by the fleet.

      It is categorically not true, and even more so the transfer to the lakes of the apl ... shallow there and there is no point, then the soil complexes, the main thing is touches the desire to simultaneously bring the surface fleet to slaughter in the oceans and hide the rocket launcher in the lakes ... a fundamental delusion of all members of the aircraft carrier's witness sect, this is a confusion between the deployment area, where it is not necessary to protect and unmask the RPSN and the area where it leaves the base (radius 1000-3000 km) where it must be done without fail
      1. SVD68
        SVD68 21 March 2021 08: 53
        -1
        Quote: vladimir1155
        categorically wrong, and even more so the transfer to the lakes of apl ... shallow there and there is no sense,

        Why do boats need a nuclear power plant in lakes? And developed hydroacoustics is not needed there. And great depth is not needed - there is no one to hide from at great depth, there are no enemy submarines, no enemy ships, no enemy PLO aircraft. And for a simpler submarine, there may be an increased KOH. Just the required 2-3 times.

        Quote: vladimir1155
        touches the desire at the same time in one head to withdraw the surface fleet for slaughter into the oceans and hide the missile defense forces in the lakes ... 1000-3000 km) where it must be done

        This is the deformation of thinking caused by the idea of ​​defending SSBNs. As if we have only one potential adversary - the United States. Indeed, SSBNs need to be protected only from the United States. But a naval war is possible not only with the United States. Among the likely opponents are Sweden, Poland, Turkey, Japan. Note, these are all historical opponents, with whom there was more than one war. Wars with them are a pattern. And of all, only with Poland there is a land border, and even that is in the enclave (and Lukashenka or his successor can kick up at any moment). We need a fleet first of all for a war with them, tk. defeat in a local war can lead to very unpleasant consequences. Like a defeat in the Russo-Japanese War, like a defeat in Afghanistan.
        1. Vladimir1155
          Vladimir1155 21 March 2021 19: 45
          0
          Quote: SVD68
          Among the likely opponents are Sweden, Poland, Turkey, Japan. Note that these are all historical opponents, with whom there was more than one war. Wars with them are a pattern.

          where did you get it? The 17th century is now 21st century behind, all of them, except for neutral Sweden, are NATO members ... so there is no point in fighting them separately and there is no need, there is nothing to share with them. and the fleet for the war on the seas is not needed, we will manage the MRK, the MPK, and all the ships of the first second rank on the oceans are needed to protect the RPKSN
  • timokhin-aa
    timokhin-aa 20 March 2021 11: 14
    +4
    Well, the decree of the President surfaced on VO, in my opinion, except for me, no one had mentioned this paper and the appendix to it before.

    The trick is that Basics is not a strategy, nor is it a set of goals.
    This is a set of good wishes that are not related to each other.
    I have a blank article on this topic lying around, for half a year I can not finish, with an analysis of what is required from the Navy according to our regulatory documents.
    There is a complete fiasco.
    This "doctrine" cannot be used as a guiding document for development.

    Speaking more broadly, today we can easily say what should not be in the fleet.
    But its contours cannot be outlined without the political goals voiced by the VPR.
    That is, we can say that aircraft carriers are needed, but we will never be able to say how many there should be.
    And so in everything.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      20 March 2021 22: 35
      0
      Quote: timokhin-aa
      , in my opinion, except for me before this paper

      Referred, although not sure what in the articles
      1. timokhin-aa
        timokhin-aa 20 March 2021 23: 02
        -1
        Well, maybe I haven't seen it anywhere on VO.
        So the document is frankly miserable.
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          20 March 2021 23: 58
          +1
          Quote: timokhin-aa
          So the document is frankly miserable.

          The question is not wretchedness, the question is in Wishlist. It is clear that as a software program for building a fleet, it is not suitable, but you can roughly understand what the politicians wanted from the fleet.
          1. timokhin-aa
            timokhin-aa 21 March 2021 00: 45
            0
            Wanted a remake of the Soviet Navy by influence
            1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              21 March 2021 09: 01
              +1
              Quote: timokhin-aa
              Wanted a remake of the Soviet Navy by influence

              Like that.
  • Basarev
    Basarev 20 March 2021 11: 30
    +9
    That's it. First of all, you need to deal with the economy. We need to break through from 2% of world GDP, we need at least 300 million Russians to create a self-sufficient economy, because no one is waiting for us in foreign markets and it seems unrealistic to break through there. That is, first of all, you need to deal with demography and social affairs, medicine and education - they will stretch the economy, and the economy will pull the offensive.
  • AlexSub
    AlexSub 20 March 2021 11: 40
    0
    The article is mostly delusional.

    What is the problem with deploying our "strategists"? This is actually being done now, and I don't see any problems in the future.
    In the deployment areas, the same 636s are on duty. Regarding the ineffectiveness of Varshavyanka due to the lack of a towed antenna, this is the reasoning of their "heard ringing" cycle. How are you going to tow it at a speed of 1,5-3 knots? Varshavyanka has a different concept of application. Unlike our nuclear submarines, on which these antennas are present. But to build conclusions about the superiority of the enemy in detecting submarines, due to the presence of a tail being released - this resembles a situation when a child claims that a car with a decorative wing goes faster than the one that does not have this wing. And it doesn't matter that the second engine is more powerful ..))
    Well, then, try to find a strategist. One gets the feeling that the author is either hovering in the clouds, or unjustifiably idolizing the possibilities of our opponents to find a boat in the world's oceans.
    In extreme cases, some of the strategists in the Arctic are on duty.
    Again, another nonsense with the style of "no torpedoes, the guard is all gone." Moreover, there are torpedoes. But they are needed in very rare cases. And basically there are missiles to destroy enemy submarines, which are faster and more effective.

    In our fleet, of course, there are areas that need to be properly worked on. But the article is not an objective analysis of the strengths and weaknesses, but just another smearing about the alleged "superiority of a potential adversary."
    1. timokhin-aa
      timokhin-aa 20 March 2021 11: 57
      +5
      In the deployment areas, the same 636s are on duty. Regarding the ineffectiveness of Varshavyanka due to the lack of a towed antenna, this is the reasoning of their "heard ringing" cycle. How are you going to tow it at a speed of 1,5-3 knots?


      How are foreign diesel-electric submarines towed?
      How to control the acoustic environment while charging the batteries without GPBA?

      Well, then, try to find a strategist. One gets the feeling that the author is either hovering in the clouds, or unjustifiably idolizing the possibilities of our opponents to find a boat in the world's oceans.


      Old Los Angeles in the 90s could take "discrete" from 300+ km. If you know what I mean.

      Again, another nonsense with the style of "no torpedoes, the guard is all gone." Moreover, there are torpedoes. But they are needed in very rare cases. And basically there are missiles to destroy enemy submarines, which are faster and more effective.


      And what kind of torpedoes are there?
      And how to apply the PLR ​​under the ice?
      Enlighten please.
      1. AlexSub
        AlexSub 20 March 2021 12: 33
        +1
        Quote: timokhin-aa
        How are foreign diesel-electric submarines towed?
        How to control the acoustic environment while charging the batteries without GPBA?


        First, you need to charge them every few days.
        Secondly, in the deployment area, as a rule, there is more than one 636.
        Third, the deployment time is known in advance and cannot overlap with the charging time.



        Quote: timokhin-aa
        Old Los Angeles in the 90s could take "discrete" from 300+ km. If you know what I mean.


        Explain what exactly do you mean?


        Quote: timokhin-aa
        And what kind of torpedoes are there?
        And how to apply the PLR ​​under the ice?


        There are "physicists". And "cases" are on the way.
        And at short distances, even the old Soviet ones will do.

        On ice, of course, nothing. And in other cases, the rocket is more effective.
        1. timokhin-aa
          timokhin-aa 20 March 2021 22: 56
          0
          Third, the deployment time is known in advance and cannot overlap with the charging time.


          This expression is meaningless

          Quote:

          Operational deployment of forces (troops) of the fleet
          the final stage of preparation of an operation (combat actions), is the withdrawal of forces (troops) of the fleet to the areas of the forthcoming operation (combat actions) by the appointed time in accordance with the operational formation and with the maximum preservation of their combat effectiveness. O.R. is organized in accordance with the adopted decision and can be carried out in advance in peacetime, during the period of an imminent threat of aggression and during the outbreak of hostilities. In addition, o.r. is an integral part of the strategic deployment of the Armed Forces (full or partial).


          And where is the charging time.

          Explain what exactly do you mean?


          Let me explain. A person who does not understand what we are talking about has no right to assert anything about the search for submarines, and related issues.
          Can only ask.
          Politely.

          There are "physicists". And "cases" are on the way.


          Well, let's start with the basics. Which boats of the SF have physicists? Or rather, not so.
          Which boat (one)?
          And what is happening with Physicists that they cannot win a single shooting for the prize of the Commander-in-Chief? Even Stone Age torpedoes?

          And at short distances, even the old Soviet ones will do.


          What's the difference at short distances or not at small? Their CLOs cannot filter out false signals, and there is no normal telecontrol to guide a torpedo through interference manually to a high-speed maneuvering target in the Navy.
          1. AlexSub
            AlexSub 21 March 2021 10: 57
            0
            Quote: timokhin-aa
            This expression is meaningless


            It makes no sense, only for those who do not understand what "deployment time" means - the time when the strategist leaves the patrol area.


            Quote: timokhin-aa
            Let me explain. A person who does not understand what we are talking about has no right to assert anything about the search for submarines, and related issues.
            Can only ask.
            Politely.


            Judging by the numbers indicated initially, I have big doubts that you really understand what you are writing about. That's why I'm asking:
            Explain what exactly do you mean?

            Puffing up the cheeks is the first sign of a dilettante who has picked himself up and is trying to assert himself in this way. A person who really understands the issue will not do this ..))



            Quote: timokhin-aa
            Well, let's start with the basics. Which boats of the SF have physicists? Or rather, not so.
            Which boat (one)?
            And what is happening with Physicists that they cannot win a single shooting for the prize of the Commander-in-Chief?


            On Ash for example.
            I have not heard about the "Commander-in-Chief's prize".
            1. timokhin-aa
              timokhin-aa 21 March 2021 11: 57
              +1
              It makes no sense, only for those who do not understand what "deployment time" means - the time when the strategist leaves the patrol area.


              But this definition is out of your head. How can someone else besides you know him? The "strategist" does not go into the patrol area, he goes into combat service, that before deployment, I gave you the definition of the Ministry of Defense above, this also applies to a single submarine.
              And most importantly, everything began with us with diesel-electric submarines.
              What have the strategists to do with it?
              You can't even keep track of your thoughts.

              Judging by the numbers indicated initially, I have big doubts that you really understand what you are writing about. That's why I'm asking:
              Explain what exactly do you mean?


              I mean the classification of a contact according to the discrete components of the acoustic spectrum.
              This is the basics.
              It's like 2x2 = 4, you know?
              You are just so far from the topic that you don't even understand how far. How can I seriously discuss something with you?

              Puffing up the cheeks is the first sign of a dilettante who has picked himself up and is trying to assert himself in this way. A person who really understands the issue will not do this ..))


              Well, re-read the thread from the beginning, don't you think that you have chosen the wrong tone here? Nobody will tolerate show-off from shkoloty, never, I also do not tolerate them.

              On Ash for example.


              And how many Ash trees are there? It's not for nothing that I asked about ONE submarine, if that.
              Well, the question is - what should the rest do?
              "Dolgoruky" for example? 667 boats? 971, 945?

              I have not heard about the "Commander-in-Chief's prize".


              I'm not surprised that you haven't heard anything about the shooting for the prize of the Commander-in-Chief of the Navy. You have not heard anything about discretes, and about the detection ranges for them, and about the fact that even our Warsaw in foreign fleets receive GPBA, about the uselessness of which for diesel-electric submarines you crucified here, and about what the deployment of forces and means, you too did not hear...

              I am ashamed to ask - have you ever heard anything about the discussed issues? Or have you just read and seen enough murziloks like "Izvestia", "Carbonic Power", etc.?
              And most importantly - why, with such a level of knowledge about the subject under discussion, do you also make some STATEMENTS on the topic?
              1. Nemchinov Vl
                Nemchinov Vl 25 March 2021 17: 35
                0
                Quote: timokhin-aa
                I mean the classification of a contact according to the discrete components of the acoustic spectrum.
                Alexander (!), but you, too, do not go too far in moralizing (!)..
                Quote: timokhin-aa
                Old Los Angeles in the 90s could take "discrete" from 300+ km. If you know what I mean.
                this is not always possible, but rather only in isolated cases !!!... Otherwise, such cases as, for example, a collision with the "Kursk" while maneuvering in the Barents ... or "Kostroma" and "Baton Rouge", could not have occurred (!)... even in principle. wink
                You like that and about the fact that the BOD 1155 shot through the entire Strait of Hormuz with a "polynomial", spoke out .... until someone from the more knowledgeable, you did not pull (it seems Serg 1965) recalling the shape, depth and length ... So please (!), without much arrogance with interlocutors !! hi
    2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      20 March 2021 12: 47
      +3
      Quote: AlexSub
      What is the problem with deploying our "strategists"? This is actually being done now, and I don't see any problems in the future.

      If you do not see something. this does not mean that it does not exist. At the Pacific Fleet, up to 80% of our SSBNs on duty came under surveillance
      1. AlexSub
        AlexSub 20 March 2021 12: 54
        0
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        If you do not see something. this does not mean that it does not exist. At the Pacific Fleet, up to 80% of our SSBNs on duty came under surveillance


        Perhaps earlier and "hit".
        But at the moment, do you want to understand the source of your awareness?
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          20 March 2021 16: 08
          +1
          Quote: AlexSub
          But at the moment, do you want to understand the source of your awareness?

          And at the moment, nothing has changed for the better.
          1. AlexSub
            AlexSub 20 March 2021 19: 46
            +1
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            And at the moment, nothing has changed for the better.


            want to understand the source of your awareness?
            1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              21 March 2021 00: 16
              +2
              Quote: AlexSub
              want to understand the source of your awareness?

              Well, for example, "Homeless Arctic". Author - Rear Admiral Zhandarov
              “Meanwhile, NATO submarines are unimpeded in the Arctic. From February 11 to August 13, 2014, the New Hampshire submarine unimpeded unimpeded on all activities for the strategic containment of the Northern Fleet in the Barents Sea.
              For reasons of confidentiality, I have no right to open up the seriousness of the issue of covering the situation at least near the points of deployment of our missile submarine cruisers, but I consider it necessary to do this, since my reports to the military-industrial complex and the General Staff have not been accepted. "
              1. ccsr
                ccsr 21 March 2021 10: 24
                0
                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                Well, for example, "Homeless Arctic". Author - Rear Admiral Zhandarov
                "Meanwhile, NATO submarines stand unhindered in the Arctic. From February 11 to August 13, 2014, the New Hampshire submarine unhindered all activities for the strategic containment of the Northern Fleet in the Barents Sea.

                And how interestingly did he define "all activities", all the more it is not clear whose activities were revealed - NATO's or ours?
                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                since my reports in the military-industrial complex and the General Staff were not accepted. "

                And what about the military-industrial complex, if we are talking about operational measures? It is strange that he refers to the General Staff, and not to the General Staff of the Navy, but he could, like Klimov, immediately write to the president.
                In general, you read this, and it becomes unclear what exactly it is about, but everyone wants to be the first in the ranks of fighters with the current leadership of the Armed Forces, we have already gone through this and know what is behind this as a rule.
                1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                  21 March 2021 11: 21
                  -1
                  Quote: ccsr
                  And how interestingly did he define "all activities", all the more it is not clear whose activities were revealed - NATO's or ours?

                  Well, if this is not clear to you, I can only sympathize with the people around you.
                  1. ccsr
                    ccsr 21 March 2021 11: 41
                    -1
                    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                    Well, if this is not clear to you, I can only sympathize with the people around you.

                    No need for sympathy - in simple language you can explain what is hidden behind this cleverness, and then I will believe that you generally understand something in military affairs.
          2. Vladimir1155
            Vladimir1155 20 March 2021 20: 02
            +1
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            And at the moment

            tell Andrey where are you going to shove AV in the Sea of ​​Okhotsk? Do you as a specialist know the parameters of the depth, the dimensions of the supply possibilities for the ports there? there is no railway to Magadan yet .. if you don't say a word, I read you defeat, flight from the battlefield ...
            1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              20 March 2021 23: 21
              0
              Quote: vladimir1155
              tell Andrey where are you going to shove AV in the Sea of ​​Okhotsk? Do you as a specialist know the parameters of the depth, the dimensions of the supply possibilities for the ports there? there is no railway to Magadan yet ..

              Vladimir, maybe that's enough already? What ports? Which Magadan? Is the aircraft carrier nailed there or what? It can be based on Vladivostok, for example, and in the threatened period - go to the same Okhotsk. And to stay there for a very, very long time during the threatened period, receiving supplies from the appropriate ships.
              Quote: vladimir1155
              if you remain silent, I read you defeat, flight from the battlefield ...

              Yes please.
              1. Vladimir1155
                Vladimir1155 20 March 2021 23: 33
                0
                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                And stay there for a very, very long time during the threatened period, receiving supplies from the appropriate ships.

                did you serve in the navy? Can you imagine what it is like to stay on the high seas for a very long time and receive supplies from advising ships, having only the opportunity to take refuge in Magadan or Korsakov (22 km from Japan), and it is not clear from whom you will squeeze the berth in Vladik and for how much.
                1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                  20 March 2021 23: 57
                  +1
                  Quote: vladimir1155
                  did you serve in the navy? can you imagine what it is like to stay on the high seas for a very long time and receive supplies from advising ships, having only the opportunity to take refuge in Magadan or Korsakov

                  And as soon as the ships went on ocean voyages ... As the BS in the Mediterranean carried ...
                  Vladimir, stop talking nonsense, she's in pain.
                  1. Vladimir1155
                    Vladimir1155 21 March 2021 00: 21
                    0
                    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                    ships went on ocean voyages

                    yeah ... and you know what a long-distance campaign is and what kind of preparation is there, how much money, fuel, how much of a test it is for the personnel ... and how much time did Kuzya spend on campaigns? and you, with a blue eye, propose that an aircraft carrier hang out in the sea without having a berth until the end of the century? ... you did not give an adequate answer about the basing of AB in the Sea of ​​Okhotsk, the only ports formally ready to accept it, Magadan Korsakov are busy and have no railroad supply. Vladik is far from Okhotsk and too close to Japan ... so, you can't learn from AB in the Sea of ​​Okhotsk, no matter how you pull the owl over the globe
                    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                      21 March 2021 09: 05
                      0
                      Quote: vladimir1155
                      yeah ... and you know what a long-distance campaign is and what kind of preparation is there, how much money, fuel, how much of a test it is for personnel ...

                      I know. 5 OPESK. TAVKR together with other ships were in Mediterranean for MONTHS.
                      Quote: vladimir1155
                      so, don't learn from you with AB in the Sea of ​​Okhotsk

                      That is, you say that it is impossible to deploy large ships (including AB) during a period of tension in Okhotsk. I think the readers of our correspondence are already clear with you :))))
                      1. Vladimir1155
                        Vladimir1155 21 March 2021 19: 41
                        +1
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        Have been in Mediterranean for MONTHS.

                        and where are they now and why they went to junk so quickly ... think ... it's not difficult just logic
                      2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                        22 March 2021 07: 10
                        0
                        Quote: vladimir1155
                        and where are they now and why they went to the scrap so quickly.

                        And they went to junk due to the collapse of the USSR and due to the fact that the Northern Fleet did not have the infrastructure to support them, which is why even in the base they were forced to exhaust their own resource.
                      3. Vladimir1155
                        Vladimir1155 22 March 2021 13: 11
                        -1
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        there was no infrastructure to support them, which is why even in the base they were forced to exhaust their own resources.

                        yeah .. well, think how now, but in the open sea the resource will be produced less than in the base at the berth or more? at the same
                      4. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                        22 March 2021 13: 29
                        +1
                        Quote: vladimir1155
                        yeah .. well, think how now, but in the open sea the resource will be produced less than in the base at the berth or more?

                        Vladimir, take a break from the Internet for a couple of weeks. You are already carrying full game.
                        That is, an aircraft carrier does not need to go to sea in the pre-war period, because its resource is being spent? wassat
                      5. Vladimir1155
                        Vladimir1155 22 March 2021 15: 42
                        0
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        pre-war period

                        pre-war periods 1921-1941, 1945-1979 .... there are long pre-war periods .... you don't have enough aircraft carriers to be at sea all the time ....
  • Vladimir1155
    Vladimir1155 20 March 2021 19: 42
    0
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    At the Pacific Fleet, up to 80% of our SSBNs on duty came under surveillance

    this is natural because Petropavlovsk Kamchatsky is deliberately denuded by traitors to the Motherland (members of the aircraft carrier witness sect) who are afraid of pitching and fog. and preferring warm Crimea Vladivostok Baltiysk
  • Bashkirkhan
    Bashkirkhan 20 March 2021 20: 24
    +1
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    At the Pacific Fleet, up to 80% of our SSBNs on duty came under surveillance

    hi Look at your leisure at a curious publication in Krasnaya Zvezda.
    http://redstar.ru/garant-stabilnosti-v-aziatsko-tihookeanskom-regione/
    Quote "And here the nuclear submarine Ryazan distinguished itself, which moved from the category of missile submarines to a new quality - a multipurpose nuclear submarine, having received a new life, a new history. As a result, the crew of the submarine won the prize of the Commander-in-Chief of the Russian Navy." Krasnaya Zvezda, not the yellow media, and the vice admiral says quite unambiguously, "has moved from the category of missile submarine cruisers to a new quality - a multipurpose nuclear submarine." Thus, a 40-year-old BDR with a museum SAC and weak torpedo armament became a hunt for Sivulf and Virginia.
    1. timokhin-aa
      timokhin-aa 20 March 2021 23: 03
      0
      This is trash!
      1. Bashkirkhan
        Bashkirkhan 21 March 2021 08: 22
        0
        Quote: timokhin-aa
        This is trash!

        hi Otherwise, everyone on VO wrote that except for the 971 Kuzbass, there are no multipurpose nuclear submarines at the Pacific Fleet. But then the vice-admiral looked with fresh eyes and found one escho. Now there are two of them - "Kuzbass" and "newest" - "Ryazan" fellow PS Ryazan, I think, will soon be written off and disposed of, its deadlines are already prohibitive, we will write off the position of the vice admiral to a kind of naval yumor (but if he is not joking, then of course it is sad).
    2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      20 March 2021 23: 22
      +1
      Quote: Bashkirkhan
      Thus, a 40-year-old BDR with a museum SAC and weak torpedo armament became a hunt for Sivulf and Virginia.

      hi I can't even comment on THIS. There are no censored words
      1. Bashkirkhan
        Bashkirkhan 21 March 2021 08: 09
        0
        Another publication about the 667 bdrm "Yekaterinburg", from which it follows that the ship is already done. https://www.oblgazeta.ru/society/defense/116245/
        "There are serious technical malfunctions on the Yekaterinburg submarine, which do not allow its further exploitation. This submarine is now practically decommissioned, it has been withdrawn from the fleet, disarmed and is waiting for the moment of its cutting."
        Thus, the time of the Soviet legacy has already come.
  • squid
    squid 20 March 2021 18: 36
    +3
    Quote: AlexSub
    The article is mostly delusional.

    One gets the feeling that the author is either hovering in the clouds, or unjustifiably idolizing the possibilities of our opponents to find a boat in the world's oceans.



    The author just read the articles of the local self-proclaimed guru - Timokhin. Where is he, with the air of the Chief Expert of the General Staff, who has descended to mere mortals, smacks the gag he invented. In particular, he talks about the possibility of detecting any of our submarines by enemy anti-submarine aircraft in any area in 5 minutes using the Radar Method. An article about this wonderful method is here:
    https://topwar.ru/149931-im-ne-sprjatatsja.html
    and here is an analysis of the sources of this enchanting article:
    https://topwar.ru/149631-o-kollapse-vmf-rf-i-novyh-sposobah-obnaruzhenija-podvodnyh-lodok.html
    get used to it, on topvar (especially with the participation of timokhin) this does not happen yet)
    if you are a specialist versed in the topic (sometimes such people wander around) - you risk dying of laughter
    1. Vladimir1155
      Vladimir1155 20 March 2021 19: 46
      +2
      Quote: squid
      on topvar (especially with the participation of Timokhin) this does not happen yet)
      if you are a specialist versed in the topic (sometimes such people wander around) - you risk dying of laughter

      I agree, but at the same time they smartly talk about the invisible aircraft carriers lost in the Mediterranean Sea ... and this is perfectly combined in their heads with the visibility of a nuclear submarine and the invisibility of an aircraft carrier ... just like pagan believers in the invincibility and necessity of AB,
    2. AlexSub
      AlexSub 20 March 2021 20: 40
      0
      Quote: squid
      An article about this wonderful method is here:
      https://topwar.ru/149931-im-ne-sprjatatsja.html
      and here is an analysis of the sources of this enchanting article:
      https://topwar.ru/149631-o-kollapse-vmf-rf-i-novyh-sposobah-obnaruzhenija-podvodnyh-lodok.html


      Thanks for the tip.
      Funny reading))
      1. timokhin-aa
        timokhin-aa 20 March 2021 23: 09
        +1
        On Orion, if you go behind the cockpit, then immediately behind it on the starboard side sits the operator of systems operating on the principles set forth in this funny reading matter.
        So, by the way.
        1. AlexSub
          AlexSub 21 March 2021 11: 00
          0
          Quote: timokhin-aa
          On Orion, if you go behind the cockpit, then immediately behind it on the starboard side sits the operator of systems operating on the principles set forth in this funny reading matter.



          Served on Orion?
          Crimean woman? An officer's daughter? ..)))
          1. timokhin-aa
            timokhin-aa 21 March 2021 12: 01
            +1
            Served on Orion?

            But why are you asking?

            The post of the operator of non-acoustic detection equipment is immediately behind the navigator-radio operator, on the same side.
            These are facts, but where I was and what I did is not your business.

            By the way, I even came across a Russian-language picture with a full Orion layout on the Internet.
            So it is not at all necessary to be in Orion to know where and what is there.

            But I didn't learn from the picture.)
    3. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      20 March 2021 23: 26
      +3
      Quote: squid
      The author just read the articles of the local self-proclaimed guru - Timokhin.

      Yes, you are delusional, dear :))))
      Quote: squid
      and here is an analysis of the sources of this enchanting article:
      https://topwar.ru/149631-o-kollapse-vmf-rf-i-novyh-sposobah-obnaruzhenija-podvodnyh-lodok.html

      The author of the article you are referring to is Andrey from Chelyabinsk.
      1. Vladimir1155
        Vladimir1155 22 March 2021 13: 17
        0
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        The author of the article you are referring to is Andrey from Chelyabinsk.

        Ivan nods to Peter and Peter Ivan ... two boots, a pair of Timokhin and Andrey from Chelyabinsk, both against coastal aviation and submarines in favor of unnecessary vulnerable expensive aircraft carriers ... horror, where are we going
  • Niko
    Niko 20 March 2021 12: 16
    +1
    Thank you Andrey. The article was expected ... and not in vain. Clearly, clearly, stated. The logic can be traced from beginning to end. There are no "emotional breakdowns" inherent in many authors in this topic.
  • iouris
    iouris 20 March 2021 12: 28
    +1
    A harsh Chelyabinsk project.
  • Svetlana
    Svetlana 20 March 2021 12: 57
    +1
    the length of the Great Kuril ridge is about 1200 km. And it will be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to intercept enemy multifunctional fighters over such a distance, simply because of the long flight time.

    The travel time for such a distance (1200 km) for an aircraft carrier at a speed of 30 knots (56 km / h) will be 21 hours - almost a day. During this time, the defense of the Kuril ridge can be broken through exactly in the place that is as far as possible from the current base of the aircraft carrier.
    The airship with a speed of 200 km / h will fly 1200 km in 6 hours. If there are 2 stratospheric airships on duty, then they will not need to fly anywhere - at a distance of 400 km their airborne AFARs are quite capable of seeing the situation at an altitude of 20..25 km in the zone of the Kuril ridge.
    1. Vladimir1155
      Vladimir1155 22 March 2021 13: 19
      0
      Quote: Svetlana
      The travel time for such a distance (1200 km) for an aircraft carrier at a speed of 30 knots (56 km / h) will be 21 hours - almost a day. During this time, the defense of the Kuril ridge can be broken through exactly in the place that is as far as possible from the current base of the aircraft carrier.
      The airship with a speed of 200 km / h will fly 1200 km in 6 hours. If there are 2 stratospheric airships on duty, then they will not need to fly anywhere - at a distance of 400 km their airborne AFARs are quite capable of seeing the situation at an altitude of 20..25 km in the zone of the Kuril ridge.

      the airship is even smarter than the reticular (ridiculously meaningless, expensive and vulnerable) AB, and cost less and fly faster.
  • Svetlana
    Svetlana 20 March 2021 13: 03
    +1
    Our "mobile airfield", maneuvering somewhere in the same Okhotsk, will not be so easy to find

    From satellites with side-scan APAR with a synthetic aperture of the centimeter range, an aircraft carrier in the Sea of ​​Okhotsk will be detected once or twice, even under a layer of clouds. And the number of such satellites now at the enemy allows for continuous monitoring of the waters of the Okhotsk, Barents and White Seas.
    The cost of an hour of servicing carrier-based aircraft on an aircraft carrier is much more expensive than the cost of servicing a thermal unmanned stratospheric airship with an onboard nuclear power plant.
    here, only carrier-based aircraft will be able to provide cover for missile carriers - aircraft from land airfields will not have enough combat radius

    Here, missile carriers can be covered by thermal unmanned stratospheric airships with an onboard nuclear power plant.
    And compulsory additional reconnaissance of the AUS according to the data of satellites and (or) ZGRLS. With which, again, carrier-based aviation will cope much better than aircraft from Kamchatka or Sakhalin airfields.

    An unmanned stratospheric airship with an AFAR all-round view will provide additional reconnaissance of the AUS based on satellites and (or) ZGRLS data much better by carrier-based aircraft.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      20 March 2021 18: 22
      +3
      Quote: Svetlana
      An unmanned stratospheric airship with an AFAR all-round view will provide additional reconnaissance of the AUS based on satellites and (or) ZGRLS data much better by carrier-based aircraft.

      But Star Destroyer is still better ...
      1. Svetlana
        Svetlana 20 March 2021 20: 44
        0
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        But Star Destroyer is still better ...

        Yes, Star Destroyer is still better ..
        In this photo taken from an airplane, there are not enough stars falling from the sky, captured from there by Star Destroyer:

        The sky, colored by a glow in a blood-red color by the radiation of the hydrogen line H alpha:
        1. Svetlana
          Svetlana 21 March 2021 09: 47
          0
          The moon is still in place. Not yet processed by Star Destroyer.
    2. Vladimir1155
      Vladimir1155 20 March 2021 19: 49
      +1
      Quote: Svetlana
      From satellites with side-scan APAR with a synthetic aperture of the centimeter range, an aircraft carrier in the Sea of ​​Okhotsk will be detected once or twice, even under a layer of clouds. And the number of such satellites now at the enemy allows for continuous monitoring of the waters of the Okhotsk, Barents and White Seas.
      The cost of an hour of service for carrier-based aircraft on an aircraft carrier is much more expensive than the cost

      that's the truth! but it is odd that the witnesses of the aircraft carrier reach the sect ... they will faithfully serve their idol ... even if they drown (and he drowns on the first mine)
  • exo
    exo 20 March 2021 13: 06
    +1
    Here is a point of view with which I completely agree.
  • The comment was deleted.
  • dgonni
    dgonni 20 March 2021 13: 21
    +4
    All aircraft carrier cruisers based on Tof. We left very quickly on pins and needles due to the lack of conditions for basing.
    So far, there will be no port bases for such ships. With supplied energy and communications. And also there is no dock for passing repairs in such cribs!
    The Northern Fleet also applies
  • iouris
    iouris 20 March 2021 14: 15
    0
    If they go on the offensive (military budget S1200 billion versus $ 26 billion), then they still need to manage to strike "the center of decision-making" (unless, of course, a decision is made to save the world from a catastrophe). What can the fleet do? The fleet is needed to demonstrate the flag to the Papuans. Some "Zumvolt" can not inspire respect for the Papuans, they need to be shown a ship bristling with guns and launchers.
  • Andrey Mishin
    Andrey Mishin 20 March 2021 14: 54
    +3
    On the whole, the article is correct, but there is no clear emphasis on the coastal fleet. The balance of forces with our potential opponents is such that there is no time for fat. No aircraft carriers and nuclear destroyers until we have enough diesel-electric submarines and ASW corvettes. The fact that the Varshavyanka women are now riveting is correct, because the situation with PLO is catastrophic and it is simply impossible to wait for the development of VNEU. I would not like to reduce the loading of corvettes with missiles, as the author suggests. We just need specialized PLO ships with especially powerful anti-submarine weapons. Both surface and underwater. And coastal anti-submarine aircraft. When the urgent issues are resolved, it will be possible to think about the ocean-going fleet, but it will not be soon.
  • Falcon5555
    Falcon5555 20 March 2021 15: 00
    0
    At the same time, it is quite possible that if we take into account all the costs of an alternative solution to the problem - that is, numerous air bases in the Kuril Islands, Kamchatka, Sakhalin with powerful air defense and missile defense, focused on the destruction of cruise missiles - the aircraft carrier will be even cheaper.

    It will be under the influence of coastal aircraft from the Japanese islands, which will hammer it until it is finished.
    If a big war broke out when he was in the Sea of ​​Okhotsk, and he is damaged, he will not be able to return to the port, where he can be repaired (because by Japan). And where will it refuel even if it is not damaged?
    If the war found him in Primorye, he has nowhere to go.
    It is difficult to completely destroy a land airfield, even if it does not have an air defense missile defense system. You can hammer it as much as you like and not gouge it, as long as there is someone who repairs it. You can drown an aircraft carrier, after which everything will die.
    Judging by Yandex maps, there are airfields on the Kuril Islands!
    The author ignores tanker planes in his logical constructions.
    You can agree with these tasks or not.
    Look how diplomatic! laughing
  • S. Viktorovich
    S. Viktorovich 20 March 2021 15: 16
    +5
    The decree of 2017 is just a declaration without taking into account the current state of the economy and the procedure for conducting and financing developments. Therefore, planning something based on it is an empty exercise.
  • Knell wardenheart
    Knell wardenheart 20 March 2021 15: 22
    +2
    It seems that just as we did not have a sensible idea (at the top) about what kind of fleet we need to create, and what to do with it in principle (I mean a more concrete idea, and not some kind of bloated abstraction) - so this idea is not ... Probably from the tsarist times. Most of our nuclear deterrence is carried out by the ground component, most of the real threats come from the land side. It's a little tight with funds, because a century of numerous sexual experiments with the economy, domestic and foreign politics were not in vain. Nothing indicates that the funds will get better in the foreseeable future. For other elements of the defense industry, funds are already called "end-to-end" (I mean, as a comparison of military budgets with potential adversaries, even if they are segmented by region), despite the fact that purely defensive tasks and construction will always go to the lion's share of this budget, due to extremely long borders and extremely bad relations with many neighbors. In view of all this - the desire to create or not create a "good, fit fleet" does not play a special role - everything depends on the economy and internal development. Without this, YES, WE CAN, if we really restrain ourselves, create a good fleet, spending a lot of time and effort, as in general we have done it many times in the past - at the cost of even more burying problems in the ground, at the cost of tightening the belt around the spine, at the cost of some technological corral in other defense areas and further pressure on the already poor population. However, it will be a "thing in itself", because the maintenance and regular renewal of such a fleet will no longer be up to us, which was shown by the experience of the remnants of the Ustinov fleet after the collapse of the USSR and the experience of the tsarist fleet after the revolution.
    Thus, I personally will once again note that we WILL NOT have a sensible fleet if we do not deal very seriously with the issues of increasing real GDP, freedom of business within the country, liberalization of entrepreneurship, progressive taxation, improving the business climate and a real fight against corruption. A large diversified economy allows you to spend money on a wide range of things, allows you to create large orders without any global distortions - in a large economy, creating a good and modern fleet will not be a flour, because these orders will support domestic production, jobs, scientists, and so on.
    And even if we finally come to this simple idea (I do not believe in it, unfortunately) - we will have to finally throw out the duality of thinking. We will not have enough funds for "Two in One", I think that priority should be given to a powerful surface fleet in the eastern part of the country, the underwater nuclear component should probably be gradually reduced along the path of maximum unification / reduction in size / crew. Those huge megalodons that we indulge in now are an extremely bad thing from the point of view of a real war, because the loss of everyone will be a big blow, and tracking down such a huge is, given modern developments, an increasingly unpleasant prospect.
  • Vladimir1155
    Vladimir1155 20 March 2021 18: 29
    +2
    the presence of surface ships, if necessary, can be carried out anywhere by corvettes and frigates, ..... well, the use of an aircraft carrier instead of a land-based airfield on Sakhalin touched ... it is much easier to drown it than to bomb a land-based airfield, and planes from unnecessary and costly AB only specific weak and few fly in, cannot be compared with a ground air base ...
  • The comment was deleted.
  • doktorkurgan
    doktorkurgan 20 March 2021 18: 46
    0
    Sensibly. Essentially.
  • ccsr
    ccsr 20 March 2021 18: 58
    0
    Author:
    Andrei from Chelyabinsk
    That is why, according to the author, an aircraft carrier would be very useful to us at the Pacific Fleet.

    The author seems to have forgotten that they didn’t even pull the Ural, and that the aircraft carrier, which is a much more complex ship, they would simply put into service “with a bang” and begin to drive the Americans across the Pacific Ocean. Oh well....
    By the way, the author himself categorically claims that
    Our "mobile airfield", maneuvering somewhere in the same Okhotsk, will not be so easy to find.

    This does not fit into any gate at all - I did not expect such stupidity, if only because it is not at all difficult to control the aircraft carrier around the clock, conducting reconnaissance in various ways, and the Americans will do it easily.
    As for permalinks, what
    in the Decree of the President of the Russian Federation of July 20, 2017 No. 327 "On approval of the Fundamentals of State Policy of the Russian Federation in the field of naval activities for the period up to 2030"
    I will only note that this is a document for open use, of a descriptive type, and it is simply naive to take seriously that there you can find a list of military documents according to which our armed forces live. Well, we had a doctrine until 2017, and where it was spelled out that we would have a completely new hypersonic weapon, which would radically restructure the very procedure for using new strategic nuclear forces, including naval ones.
    As for the author's hopes that we will be able to equally develop the surface fleet, submarine fleet and naval aviation, I think the author is wishful thinking, because it will not be so. And so it's time for the naval commanders to decide what we will develop as a priority, although I already assume that it will be submarine missile carriers.
    1. Vladimir1155
      Vladimir1155 20 March 2021 19: 52
      +2
      Quote: ccsr
      As for the author's hopes that we will be able to equally develop the surface fleet, submarine fleet and naval aviation, I think the author is wishful thinking, because it will not be so. And so it's time for the naval commanders to decide what we will develop as a priority, although I already assume that it will be submarine missile carriers.

      that's right, it is
  • Denis Rumyanny
    Denis Rumyanny 20 March 2021 19: 11
    +2
    The capitalists have invented everything before us long ago. "Flying Arsenal" with anti-ship missiles and missile launchers, torpedoes based on the cargo Boeing 737, cheap, cheerful, effective.
    Could on the basis of IL-76 make a "flying arsenal" with the simplest parachute-exhaust system for Daggers, Calibers, Zircons, Onyx. With a capacity of dozens of anti-ship missiles or torpedoes. Race from the Baltic to the Pacific Ocean, depending on the situation. Without entering the air defense order of the AUG or the air defense of the "partner" countries Of course, the control center problems will have to be solved. In the meantime, we are reinventing the wheel, which has long been invented.
    1. evgen1221
      evgen1221 20 March 2021 20: 34
      0
      The flying arsenal is an interesting idea, but not in our current financial situation. I have, but. It crashes on its own, such a side will be knocked down and a significant percentage of expensive missiles goes into negative territory. You have already mentioned the target designation, The price of the issue is for amers to lose dozens of axes in the central control center, there is no great sadness, they will drive a replacement from the nearest base, and the loss in strategic terms is not great - the states are far away, you need to swim, and they use force on very distant ones distances. This does not shine for us - everything flies over its own territory and the loss of an aircraft can bring down at least one defense sector, while there a backup will fly there, it may be late.
      1. Denis Rumyanny
        Denis Rumyanny 20 March 2021 21: 17
        +1
        It is the flying arsenal based on the IL-76 that is the cheapest way out. The simplest parachute-exhaust system of rockets will weld any welding workshop on the knee in a month. Given the missile launch range of 1000-2500 km. the problem of air defense is not worth it at all. TsU-satellite, ZAGLS, AWACS. Of course, it will not work without a fleet.
        The Russian destroyer / aircraft carrier in the 20th century is the Trans-Siberian Railway. Despite all the Wishlist of Kings and Genseks.
        Russian aircraft carrier in the 21st century - long-range aviation. No matter how the Patriots say.
        1. evgen1221
          evgen1221 21 March 2021 05: 32
          0
          I agree. Avik with ours is all for sale and nothing can be produced inside the country, this is of course a utopia. Wishlist wishlist and the economy is first of all attached to Avik.
        2. Nestor Vlakhovski
          Nestor Vlakhovski 21 March 2021 15: 40
          0
          You don't even have to bother with parachutes, the same 8 long-range missiles can be hung under the wing, as is done on the Tu-95 or B-52.
          1. Denis Rumyanny
            Denis Rumyanny 21 March 2021 20: 21
            0
            Bombs are hung on the wing pylons of the Il 76, I think rockets are also not a problem. But it will fit more into the fezule.
            1. Nestor Vlakhovski
              Nestor Vlakhovski 22 March 2021 14: 22
              0
              There is no point in shoving missiles into the fuselage, the slight loss of fuel efficiency is not worth it.
              On subsonic aircraft, it is more profitable to suspend missile weapons.
              It will look something like this

              8 "onyxes", this is 24 tons, which will be just a normal payload for IL76.
              1. Denis Rumyanny
                Denis Rumyanny 22 March 2021 15: 38
                0
                I agree. That's the whole solution to the issue of missile carriers at sea. And torpedoes and bottom mines too. In peacetime, they carry goods and personnel, extinguish fires. In a wartime or threatened period, weapons are hung up and forth.
  • From Tomsk
    From Tomsk 20 March 2021 19: 18
    -1
    To be honest, you are completely dull. Maybe you will go to PM so that there are problems of the Navy to discuss. The Navy now needs the usual INVENTORY. That is, you just need to calculate how many ships of one class or another are now, how many each has a service life. How many frigates, corvettes, submarines, destroyers are needed, what infrastructure is needed, determine the sources and amounts of funding. There is nothing complicated here. This is a tedious job for more than one month. It is not interesting to write about her. It is better to write down another article about nothing and catch a hype.
    1. Vladimir1155
      Vladimir1155 20 March 2021 19: 59
      +4
      Quote: From Tomsk
      The Navy now needs the usual INVENTORY. That is, you just need to calculate how many ships of one class or another are now, how many each has a service life. How many frigates, corvettes, submarines, destroyers are needed, what infrastructure is needed, determine the sources and amounts of funding.

      right, but ... now there is no fleet at all, its combat readiness is zero (except for the RPDKN) ships for admiral posts are smeared on the seas (mostly warm) and new ships are also smeared, ... according to the naval tradition, half of the ships cannot leave at all about the berth but is listed in the ranks and, most importantly, they receive all types of allowances ... For inventory, you need to create two fleets of large Northern Fleets and Kamchatka (where all ships of the first second rank are collected) and one semi-fleet with several naval (Black Sea Fleets) and there it will already be possible to sort it out invertarize .....
    2. ccsr
      ccsr 20 March 2021 21: 00
      0
      Quote: From Tomsk
      The Navy now needs the usual INVENTORY.

      In fact, there was a table of urgent reports to the General Staff in Soviet times, where all this was indicated, and the technique with an indication of categorization. The form was handwritten - that's how they worked at that time!
      Now you just need to take the latest reports on each fleet and the picture will become clear. Although those who are responsible for this will prepare a full report for you within half an hour, unless of course all this is automated - I hope that this is exactly the case.
    3. Usher
      Usher 20 March 2021 22: 13
      0
      What's so hard about that? Do you need to count a lot? Half a day of work in Excel.
    4. timokhin-aa
      timokhin-aa 20 March 2021 23: 11
      0
      Everything was counted a long time ago, what are you talking about.
  • Rlptrt
    Rlptrt 20 March 2021 20: 19
    +1
    One problem: for effective deterrence by sea-based nuclear weapons, it is not enough to create protected areas in the Barents and Okhotsk seas for SSBNs. They want the Ocean. And there is nothing to create.
    And the second thing. To create protected areas from the actions of enemy submarines, neither the PLO aircraft nor the airborne GAS is quite enough. We need a full-fledged system of illumination of the underwater environment, including with stationary stations and antennas. But nobody itches about her. A couple of frail NIRs sawed money and that's it.
  • evgen1221
    evgen1221 20 March 2021 20: 23
    +1
    I would not make deep and shallow conclusions and inferences from the documents of our authorities - only good wishes and unsecured mriyas with ambitions. A lot of wishes of all the best with empty words. So what if there is this piece of paper of the Kremlin dreamers? And where are the normal prices for raw materials, work, electricity and fuel for the implementation of these wishes in the fleet? ensure the high status declared in the paper. How, by what means? Yes, we don’t care what, we write pieces of paper, but how they will work is not for us.
  • Tavrik
    Tavrik 20 March 2021 21: 53
    -1
    Quote: squid
    how armadas of enemy AUGs with the beginning of the war will treacherously rush to our shores

    The main thing is that it does not work out, as in the Great Patriotic War, when we were waiting for them near the Crimea and Leningrad, but they did not rush ...
  • Usher
    Usher 20 March 2021 22: 11
    0
    And if you also consider that equipping them with a propeller instead of a water cannon does not allow you to count on a high speed of low noise
    are water cannons better? Then why isn't everyone using it?
    1. timokhin-aa
      timokhin-aa 20 March 2021 23: 14
      0
      All use except SPMBM Malachite. Naturally at atomic. And he does not use Malachite because it is high time for this office to prescribe some Stalinist repressions.
      1. Usher
        Usher 20 March 2021 23: 20
        0
        Quote: timokhin-aa
        All use except SPMBM Malachite. Naturally at atomic. And he does not use Malachite because it is high time for this office to prescribe some Stalinist repressions.

        As far as I remember, the Virginias are not a water cannon.
        1. timokhin-aa
          timokhin-aa 20 March 2021 23: 22
          +1
          They have a water cannon.
          1. Usher
            Usher 21 March 2021 01: 36
            0
            Quote: timokhin-aa
            They have a water cannon.

            And not in fenestrone? This is not a water cannon.
            1. timokhin-aa
              timokhin-aa 21 March 2021 10: 16
              0
              There is a full-fledged water cannon, as well as on Seawulfs, Astyuts, Boreas, etc. A screw in the ring on the Los Angeles Imprud
  • Artemion3
    Artemion3 21 March 2021 06: 49
    0
    In principle, the question boils down to a dilemma: either there are many low-ranked ships, or few high-ranked ones, or a near MZ, or a distant
    1. timokhin-aa
      timokhin-aa 21 March 2021 12: 02
      0
      Why? You can have one and the other to a minimum.
  • Vatnik-rkka
    Vatnik-rkka 21 March 2021 12: 30
    0
    Reading in your article about PLO corvettes, I could not get rid of the thought that somewhere I had already seen such ships, and not long ago. Well, really, without an air defense complex (but there is room for it!) And without a towed GAS (but the same with an empty space for it). Moreover, the ships are already in the series, several of them are sailing on the seas-oceans! What am I talking about? And about Vasil Bykov and others like him ...
    1. timokhin-aa
      timokhin-aa 21 March 2021 16: 49
      0
      Are you kidding me?
  • Sailor
    Sailor 21 March 2021 14: 28
    0
    Well, if they invest not in yachts and palaces, but in MRA and frigates, VNEU, then everything will work out.
    1. Nestor Vlakhovski
      Nestor Vlakhovski 21 March 2021 15: 36
      0
      Why do you need a fleet at all if there are no yachts and palaces? What is the point of enduring and dragging out a miserable existence ??? A normal and sane person should strive for comfort, and not run away from it.
      1. S. Viktorovich
        S. Viktorovich 21 March 2021 16: 56
        +2
        When my father in the middle of the steppe got off a steam locomotive in a dazzling white tunic and with a dagger - all the local population amazed, they still remember. And you say why the fleet. He then commanded the "baby".
      2. Sailor
        Sailor 21 March 2021 17: 39
        0
        Hope this is sarcasm?
        1. S. Viktorovich
          S. Viktorovich 21 March 2021 17: 50
          0
          Regarding everything described above, this is just the truth.
          Sarcasm is the current state of the fleet.
          The Klimov-Timofeevs are great in waking up the problem.
        2. Nestor Vlakhovski
          Nestor Vlakhovski 21 March 2021 19: 22
          0
          Why sarcasm?
          Oil instead of cannons - we have already gone through all this more than once, let such a life burn in hell.
  • S. Viktorovich
    S. Viktorovich 21 March 2021 18: 05
    0
    The situation in the construction of the fleet is rolling along a charged trajectory. The fleet is in the worst position of all types of the armed forces. As the non-binding discussion of at least this resource shows, "butterflies are not caught in the fleet."
    1. Nestor Vlakhovski
      Nestor Vlakhovski 21 March 2021 19: 21
      +2
      The fleet is a little bit, but it is being replenished with new equipment.
      And the tankers have not had a projectile capable of penetrating the frontal of a potential enemy for 40 (FORTY !!!) years.
      Motorized riflemen, like martyrs, ride on the armored personnel carriers, because neither the BTR-70/80 nor the BMP-1/2/3 can either wear armor or a transporter.
      In the Air Force, there is only one "fighter" of the 5th generation, against about 700+ such machines in a potential enemy.
      Scouts still do not have normal drones.
      Compared to the rest, the sailors are not so bad, despite the fact that in the current geopolitical situation, his priority should be even not in second, but in 10th place.
  • Artemion3
    Artemion3 21 March 2021 19: 26
    0
    Need a thoughtful asymmetric response to AUGi