Military Review

On the cost of the fleet that Russia needs

210

In the previous article "About the fleet that we need", I sketched in the most general terms the composition fleet, which would satisfy the requirements laid down 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".


It turned out, of course, on a very large scale. We will need aircraft carriers, missile carriers, new types of submarines, and destroyers and all sorts of other things. And, of course, questions arise - are we capable of building such a fleet technically, and will we pull it economically?

About technology


Here you can answer right away - yes, we will definitely pull it.

From the point of view of submarines, we have not forgotten how to create SSBNs, nuclear submarine missile boats (SSGN), we are also making diesel (updated "Varshavyanka" project 636.3), that is, we are quite capable of all this. Yes, there are many problems with air-independent power plants and lithium-ion batteries, which either do not exist at all, or they are not suitable for use on warships. There are also problems with the once newest "Ladas" of project 677, which even in the usual diesel version do not want to "take off" in any way - instead of them all the same "Varshavyanki" are still being built.

But nothing prevents us from continuing the Yasenei-M series (say, up to 12 units), because these ships are quite formidable carriers of cruise missiles. Nothing prevents the creation of a "people's" nuclear torpedo submarine of moderate displacement for large-scale construction. Analogue of the French "Barracuda". Or the atomic Lada, if you like. As for the closed theaters, the Black Sea and the Baltic, for now, alas, we will have to make do with what has already been built, that is, the "Varshavyanka".

As for the construction of surface ships, no insurmountable problems are visible either. The transfer of Project 22350 frigates to domestic engines showed that we are quite capable and able to produce them. Although, of course, for some time the industry will not be able to supply the fleet with these engines in sufficient quantities, but, again, all this can be solved in the medium term. There would be a desire. Today we are already producing all the necessary range of main weapons - anti-ship and cruise missiles, anti-aircraft missile systems, naval artillery, etc. Yes, there are egregious situations when the fleet is supplied with deliberately weak, up to unusable, weapon (see M. Klimov's articles on torpedoes, PTZ, anti-mine weapons), but even there the problems are mostly not technical, but, let's say, of a departmental nature. And it is entirely within our power to eliminate them - there would be a desire.

On aviation - there are no problems in the part of multifunctional fighters and tactical strike aircraft - they are all mass-produced. In general, specialized electronic warfare and RTR aircraft are quite accessible to us - in recent decades, very powerful complexes of the same electronic warfare have been created, placed on tactical aircraft.

As for the PLO planes and helicopters, then, most likely, it will be more difficult - we have not been working on the creation of such equipment for a long time, with all due respect to the developers of Novella - this is already yesterday. Nevertheless, insurmountable problems are not visible here either. And the more we postpone the creation of such aircraft and complexes for them, the more difficult it will be for us to overcome the lag behind our "sworn friends" who are dealing with these issues quite seriously.

The same can be said about AWACS aircraft. There are problems there, because both the Russian Federation and the USSR were engaged almost exclusively in the ultimatum-giant AWACS aircraft of the A-50 and A-100 type, but work on relatively small aircraft of a similar purpose was practically not carried out. Yes, the carrier-based AWACS aircraft of moderate sizes - Yak-44, An-71, were being worked out, but they, especially in terms of the radar systems placed on them, remained at a very early stage of development. At the same time, aircraft of this type, in my opinion, would be extremely in demand, both by the Navy and the Aerospace Forces. Because the same A-100 "Premier" will be extremely expensive, and from this it will never be produced in a large series. While the plane, like the same Yak-44, is quite capable of becoming a "workhorse" of the Aerospace Forces and the Navy's aviation.


Currently, the Russian Federation is capable of creating very powerful and compact radars, both with passive and active phased array, installed on the Su-35 and Su-57. Taking into account certain successes in the development of CIUS and the experience gained in the design of the A-100, the creation of an AWACS aircraft of moderate size on the basis of, say, the "modernized" Yak-44 looks, although difficult and time-consuming, but quite feasible for us. In which, I repeat, not only the fleet is interested.

The same goes for aircraft carriers. The creation of "Vikramaditya" demonstrated that we did not lose our skills either in the part of special deck covering, or in the part of aerofinishers, or in the part of flight control systems that ensure the takeoff and landing of aircraft on the deck. The only thing we don't have today are catapults. But in both steam and electromagnetic catapults, a large backlog has been preserved since the times of the USSR, so there are no unsolvable problems here either. In the most extreme case, it would be possible to do with a springboard on an aircraft carrier, having reserved a place for catapults for their subsequent installation.

About prices


Using open sources, I have compiled a small table of prices for our various weapons. Everything in it is quite simple - I take the price of the product, "announced" in any given year, and multiply it by the amount of inflation that "accumulated" from the middle of the year to January 2021. The final figures, let's say, turned out with a fair amount of margin, even to the point of being illogical.

On the cost of the fleet that Russia needs

As regards our Borey and Ashes, everything is more or less clear - these are the numbers that were indicated for them in 2011, however, there is a nuance here. It is quite possible that 23,2 billion rubles for Borey is the cost of the parent Yuri Dolgoruky, which was pledged already in 1996. At the same time, there were reports that the ship itself cost 14 billion rubles, and the remaining 9 billion is the cost of R&D on it. In general, it is rather difficult to determine the cost of our SSBNs, but 23,2 billion rubles looks like a more or less sensible figure. The cost of serial "Ash-M" was indicated somewhere around 30 billion rubles, but much more often - 41 billion rubles. The latter is taken into account. The cost of the corvette is taken according to the manufacturer's official reporting.

The cost of the Su-35 in 2009 was obtained by dividing the value of the contract by the number of vehicles purchased under it. Interestingly, when inflation was added, it turned out that in January 2021, the Su-35 should cost 2,8 billion rubles per unit, which is even higher than the cost of the Su-57 under a contract for 76 aircraft of this type. In fact, the purchase price of the Su-35 is now tending to 2 billion rubles.

I did not rule the cost of the Tu-160M ​​and Su-57 on inflation - the fact is that these contracts are designed to be executed in the 20s, so the inflationary component is already included in them. And in order to bring the price of aircraft under these contracts by January 2021, it is necessary not to increase, but to reduce the contract prices. But I will not do that. Let it remain as it is.

Alas, as follows from the above table, I simply could not find the costs of building ships of many classes. So I had to determine their value by calculation.

March 24, 2005 at the Naval Academy. Admiral of the Fleet of the Soviet Union N.G. Kuznetsov, a scientific and practical conference "History, prospects for the development and combat use of aircraft carrier ships (aircraft carriers) of the Russian Navy ". On it, the leading researcher of the Central Research Institute named after V.I. Academician A.N. Krylova A.M. Vasiliev gave some very interesting figures.

According to him, the cost of building a TAVKR project 1143.5 ("Admiral of the Fleet of the Soviet Union Kuznetsov") was approximately equal to the cost of three PLATs (nuclear torpedo submarine) of project 971. The nuclear aircraft carrier of project 1134.7 ("Ulyanovsk") was supposed to cost the country 4 such submarines ... Of course, we are talking only about the ship itself, without the air group based on it. How correct is this assessment? In principle, it is fully confirmed by foreign experience - the larger US aircraft carriers cost about as much as 4–5 of their multipurpose nuclear submarines. For example, "Illinois" (type "Virginia") cost US taxpayers $ 2,7 billion. And "Gerald R. Ford", transferred to the Navy in 2017, "pulled" about $ 13 billion. But let's not forget that Illinois is still a serial ship, and Ford is the lead ship.

If we estimate the cost of the promising nuclear-powered aircraft carrier of the Russian Navy in 4 "Yasenya-M", then, from the point of view of the price ratios given by A.M. Vasiliev, we will "re-lay with a reserve", because the submarines of project 885M are still not PLATs, but a much more expensive universal ship, which, according to the creators, was supposed to combine the functionality of PLAT and SSGN (nuclear missile submarine). Well, the resulting amount (290 billion rubles) coincides with the estimates expressed today. For this money, it is quite possible to get a nuclear-powered ejection ship capable of basing 36 heavy multifunctional fighters. 4 specialized AWACS aircraft, 4 electronic warfare aircraft and 10 helicopters.

As for the destroyer, I see it not at all as a nuclear "Leader", but as a much more modest ship, close in performance characteristics to the modernized frigate 22350M. This should be a ship with a total displacement of no more than 8-9 thousand tons, with a conventional power plant and main armament in the range of 80-96 launchers UKSK and Redut air defense missile systems in aggregate. I set the cost of such a destroyer within 85% of the Yasenya-M price, that is, 61,7 billion rubles. Which, again, is quite similar to the truth. Taking into account the fact that the much more expensive and large "Leader" (18 thousand tons of nuclear power plants), according to some estimates, should have "pulled out" 100 billion rubles.

I set the cost of the frigate at 75% of the cost of the destroyer, which will allow building ships that are close in their performance characteristics to the original "Gorshkov". I took the cost of the corvette very high - as much as 25,6 billion rubles. I am sure that the low-cost PLO corvette will cost the fleet much cheaper. With the minesweeper - he also did not waste time on trifles, having allocated as much as half of the corvette for him - 12,8 billion rubles. Well, I'm not greedy at all. And all because, for the purposes of my calculation, it is permissible to make mistakes upwards, but not downwards.


As for the submarines, the cost of SSBNs and SSGNs I take in the amount of "price in 2011 + inflation", it turned out 41 and 72,6 billion rubles. When determining prices for small nuclear-powered torpedo submarines and ships with air-independent installations or lithium-ion batteries, I proceeded from the calculations of the ratios of the costs of foreign boats given in the article “The future of the Russian submarine fleet. Is the bet on VNEU and LIAB correct?? ". According to my analysis of the costs of American, British, French submarines, as well as Japanese submarines, it turns out that a small PLAT of the French Barracuda level costs about 50-60% of the cost of a “large” nuclear submarine like Virginia or Astyut, and the diesel-electric submarine with VNEU - about 25-30%.

Again, I take the maximum - that a small PLAT will cost us 60% of the cost of Yasen-M (43,5 billion rubles), and diesel-electric submarines with VNEU - 30% (21,8 billion rubles). I'm sure we can make them cheaper, but ... so be it.

As a dear reader may notice, when assessing the cost of warships for the Russian Navy, I adhere to the principle of prudence, and I prefer to increase their cost than to underestimate it. This is exactly how I act in assessing the cost of combat aircraft.

I estimate the cost of a missile carrier for the Russian Navy in the amount of the cost of the Tu-160M. This does not mean that I propose using the Tu-160M, I just assume that a suitable naval missile-carrying aircraft will approach it in cost. The cost of the MFI (multifunctional fighter) today is in the range of 2–2,3 billion rubles per plane, but I charge 3 billion. The cost of the Su-34, adjusted for inflation, is 1,8 billion rubles, but I take the same 3 billion for a tactical aircraft of the same class.

The cost of a carrier-based AWACS aircraft from the Americans "pulls out" by about 1,5 the cost of MFIs, but I take it twice - 6 billion rubles. And at the same rate I regard the electronic warfare aircraft. But in general, nothing is impossible to say about the cost of helicopters. But there is evidence that combat helicopters such as the Mi-28 and Ka-52 cost about a billion rubles apiece. For the helicopters of the fleet, I took exactly one billion.

And what happened?

The final table showing the cost of ships and aircraft, as well as an approximate estimate of the required number for the four fleets of the Russian Federation is given below.


A very important caveat. I am not at all saying that the Russian Federation needs just such and no other fleet. I do not pretend that I have managed to perfectly balance the numbers and classes of ships and aircraft, and also to correctly distribute them among the fleets. It is possible that some classes (for example, strategic missile carriers) can and should be replaced with something else (for example, tactical aviation, etc.). My task was somewhat different - to determine the approximate cost of naval forces, numerous and powerful enough to operate both on their shores and, if necessary, in the ocean.

The fleet, which includes 12 SSBNs, 44 multipurpose nuclear submarines, and 16 diesel engines in VNEU or LIAB, with aircraft carriers for the Pacific Fleet and Northern Fleet, with 32 destroyers and frigates, 40 corvettes, 180 multifunctional fighters, etc. RUB 9 trillion 353 billion in January 2021 prices. It seems to be quite clear - a serious fleet of the Russian Federation is absolutely beyond the means to afford it.

But is it?

About the average annual cost of building a fleet


The thing is that the Navy is not created all at once. So, for example, if we want to have 2 aircraft carriers in the fleet with a service life of 50 years each, this means that every 50 years we need to build exactly 2 aircraft carriers. If we want to have four dozen corvettes with a service life of 40 years, then we should transfer to the Navy one corvette a year, and so on.

And now, if we recalculate the average annual expenditures on the construction of the Navy of the above-mentioned composition, then we will receive only 228 billion rubles in average annual expenditures!


Now let's think about what we did not take into account in our table. We did not count the supplies of equipment to the BRAV and the marines, did not take into account the landing ships, did not count the Caspian Flotilla, did not take into account the specific tasks of lighting the underwater situation, small OVR ships, and also did not take into account the auxiliary fleet - tugs, tankers, supply vessels, rescuers etc. Well, let's add another 15% of the previously calculated amounts to everything. Offhand, 1,429 trillion rubles is quite enough for all these needs.

But that's not all. The fact is that, probably, not in any case, the contract value of ships and aircraft will also include ammunition for them. Well, let's not waste time on trifles. And add another 20% for the specified needs. Will this be enough? The US destroyer Arleigh Burke, worth approximately $ 1,8 billion (relevant for about 2015), has 96 launch cells. If we count the double ammunition load - 192 missiles at an average price of $ 1,5 million each - it turns out to be about 16%, but in addition to missiles, it also has shells and torpedoes. So it will probably stretch by 20%. But the double ammunition load for the Virginia (24 Tomahawks and 52 torpedoes) will be substantially less than 20% of the ship's cost (I remind you that Illinois cost $ 2,7 billion).

With all these amendments, the average annual cost of building the fleet will amount to 321,3 billion rubles per year. What else have I missed?

Of course, the costs of repairs, the creation of infrastructure, R&D, but about them - a little later. And now let's remember about such an unpleasant thing as taxes, namely, value added tax, or in abbreviated form VAT.

So, unfortunately, it is completely unclear whether the price for "Ash", "Borei", Su-35, etc. was indicated in open sources. with or without VAT. It is reliably known that the price for the corvette (17 billion rubles) was indicated without VAT. Most likely, the cost of our aircraft, calculated from the contract price, still includes VAT, but this is not accurate. However, I will proceed from the fact that all the prices I have calculated are still without VAT. Well, I'll add it - that's another 20% on top. And in this case, the average annual expenses for the Russian Navy increase to 385,5 billion rubles.

Is it a lot, or a little?

On the budget of the RF Ministry of Defense



As can be seen from the presented infographics, the cost of purchasing weapons without taking into account R&D, equipment repairs, operating costs, excluding personnel costs, combat training, etc. etc. in 2019 it was supposed to be 1 billion rubles. Adjusted for inflation, this is equivalent to 022 billion rubles as of January 1. The 085,5 billion rubles we calculated make up only 2021% of the total expenditures of the RF Armed Forces under this item!

In principle, it would be logical to allocate financing for the purchase of weapons to the Russian Navy at the level of at least 30-33% from the "common pot", but we have got a little more here. But let's remember what serious assumptions I made in favor of increasing the cost of literally all types of military equipment. In addition, nothing prevents us from optimizing the program presented above in terms of the cost of ships of all classes, and the number can also be corrected.

The only caveat is that I would not start such construction right away, but initially I would take care of the bases and maintenance of the fleet. I would take a delay of several years, during which I would send less to ships, planes and missiles, but more to all the necessary infrastructure. Thus, within three to four years, at least 300-400 billion rubles could be spent on these purposes. Which, in principle, could be enough for a lot.

Conclusion from the above


It is extremely simple. Already today, with the existing funding of the armed forces, we can afford the construction of a powerful military fleet, including ships of all classes, including aircraft carriers, dozens of nuclear submarines, etc. etc. There are no insurmountable financial barriers here, there is no need to dress the entire population of the country in quilted jackets and make them starve.

But what needs to be done is to achieve effective distribution of the financial resources allocated to the fleet. The navy is a very “long-playing” branch of the armed forces, which has been under construction for decades. We need a concept, and not within the framework of the 10-year GPV program, but 40-50 years ahead. Reasonable centralized R&D management is needed. We need a shipbuilding program, unification of warship projects and much, much more. Simply put, we just need to rationally use the means at our disposal. We need order.

Which, unfortunately, does not exist in the Russian Federation. And it is not expected.
Author:
210 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Sling cutter
    Sling cutter April 2 2021 04: 38
    +14
    Andrei again worked in earnest.
    Once again, it has been proven that there is enough money,
    but there is simply no long-term concept for the development of the fleet.
    1. Vladimir_2U
      Vladimir_2U April 2 2021 05: 19
      +12
      Quote: Stroporez
      Andrei again worked in earnest.

      Yes, definitely bookmarked.
      1. Artyom Karagodin
        Artyom Karagodin April 2 2021 13: 56
        +8
        Separately, it would be worth to thank him for his impartiality to himself. Of the many authors on VO, the confidence in their own absolute and infallible righteousness glows. Andrei is a happy exception to this rule. He honestly says that he wrote nothing more than a sketch, whose goal is not to determine the optimal composition of the fleet, but to show that having a sufficiently powerful and balanced fleet for Russia is a very real task. There would only be order and understanding of WHAT Navy we need. That is, for what specific tasks. But here, too, "it is not foreseen", since the current leadership of the country has no image of the future of our country. Accordingly, there is no clear strategy of action - both domestically and internationally. Let's decide what the "Russian dream" is - we'll deal with all the other problems!
    2. Stas157
      Stas157 April 2 2021 05: 56
      +13
      ... a fantastic value as much as 9 trillion 353 billion rubles in January 2021 prices. It seems to be quite clear - a serious fleet of the Russian Federation absolutely unaffordable.

      And it seems to me quite affordable. If the elite sit down on a "hungry" ration. In the end, they also offer people to sit on macaroshki!

      After all, what is 9 trillion 353 billion rubles? Only 125 billion dollars. Not such a large amount compared to how much billion dollars were withdrawn from the country to the West to offshore by oligarchs and the king's cronies. $ 1 trillion with 90s. On average, $ 30-40 billion per year.

      That is, in three years it would have turned out just required amount for a serious fleet. Like two unnecessary Olympiads.
      1. Sling cutter
        Sling cutter April 2 2021 06: 01
        +13
        Quote: Stas157
        Not such a large amount compared to how much billion dollars were withdrawn from the country to the West to offshore by the tsar's cronies. $ 1 trillion since the 90s. On average, $ 30-40 billion per year.

        I continue to say that if you return all the money stolen from us, then not only the fleet, but the whole country can be rebuilt twice again.
      2. Grandfather
        Grandfather April 2 2021 06: 02
        +10
        no money for the fleet? and corvettes "short? .... they called the wrong country ... Greetings to Putin!
        1. Vladislav Trofimov
          Vladislav Trofimov April 6 2021 17: 30
          +1
          The aggregate price of toys of domestic billionaires exceeds the cost of all warships built over the past 10 years for the Russian Navy
          Their on-board power systems are comparable in power to nuclear power plants, they are equipped with durable armor, military radars, mini-submarines, helicopters and many more state-of-the-art security and navigation systems. And all this together makes these luxurious toys more expensive than all the new warships of the Russian Navy. And the costs for only one such yacht exceed the cost of modernizing the nuclear cruiser "Admiral Nakhimov", - calculated "Voennoye Obozreniye".
      3. Civil
        Civil April 2 2021 06: 57
        +3
        And it seems to me quite affordable. If the elite sit down on a "hungry" ration. In the end, they also offer people to sit on macaroshki!

        Of course, already sits on a hungry ration, but not the elite laughing
        1. pin_code
          pin_code April 5 2021 08: 45
          +1
          so she is not an elite, so an elite, from rags to riches
      4. Sahalinets
        Sahalinets April 2 2021 09: 00
        +6
        If the elite sit down on a "hungry" ration

        Rather, the Martians will land in Gatchina. The essence of modern Russia is to serve the elite as a place to plunder. And the subsequent departure to the "civilized" world. Their kids are already there, bills and real estate too, they just can't get drunk. sad
        1. VladGTN
          VladGTN April 3 2021 21: 03
          0
          Why exactly in Gatchina? Maybe it's better in Pushkin, or in Kobrino ...
      5. Lannan Shi
        Lannan Shi April 2 2021 09: 34
        +21
        Quote: Stas157
        And it seems to me quite affordable. If the elite sit down on a "hungry" ration.

        Hungry ration? If she sits on a starvation ration, then it will be possible to put golden toilet bowls on the ships of our Navy. yes
        Let's take Norilsk Nickel and NLMK for example. The average net profit of Norilsk Nickel, over the past 5 years - $ 3.5 billion per year. The net income of Mr. Lisin, in 2019, did not look for the 20th - $ 1 billion. If we reform the tax system, let it be on the model of the Chinese one, then only Norilsk Nickel will give an additional 350 million dollars a year. 25% of income tax in China, versus 15 in ours. Well, Mr. Lisin is $ 200 million. 35% of income in China, versus 15 in our country. Total 1 company + 1 individual - $ 550 million per year. On the 1st nuclear submarine per year, only from the 1st company and 1 individual ... And the tax system of China can not be called a "starvation ration". And Chinese companies are not going broke, and Chinese billionaires are not swelling with hunger. yes
        Quote: Stas157
        Like two unnecessary Olympiads.

        The problem is that the Navy is unnecessary. You can't make much of it. But the Olympics and world championships ... This is just a gold mine. Remind me of the "Olympic gas pipeline"? Cost per running meter, 3-5 times more expensive than foreign counterparts?
        The problem is that our approaches are radically different. In China, billionaires are a feeding trough for the state. Here ... The state is a feeding trough for billionaires. That is why China pawns ships in batches, and we grind them out by the piece. sad
      6. saigon
        saigon April 2 2021 18: 03
        0
        Unfortunately, money is not the first problem.
        There has never been such a simple thing as an understanding of what kind of fleet we need, and for WHAT, for the solution of what tasks we need a fleet.
        What are the tasks in the Baltic and the Black Sea, and what are the tasks in the north and east.
        The navy is first of all, oddly enough, a political instrument, for solving political tasks, and only then for these tasks a concept of the use and construction of the fleet is needed.
        But I have never met this anywhere.
        1. Artemion3
          Artemion3 April 2 2021 22: 13
          +1
          In today's situation, any corvette, frigate or submarine is in place, so let's not be picky
          1. Nemchinov Vl
            Nemchinov Vl April 4 2021 21: 32
            0
            Quote: Artemion3
            In today's situation any corvette, frigate ...- in placeso let's not be picky
            under this motto navy apparently and vparivayut 20380 !! I wonder what will do (if God forbid your son gets to serve him), at the time of the battle ?! If torpedoes are fired at him from 25-35 km, and if sailors manage to hear the enemy's nuclear submarine (which is not a fact), then there will be no chances of catching up or attacking it (nothing !!). And not a single one !!! About a massive attack of anti-ship missiles from ships of a potential enemy, with a conditionally capable air defense system, it is not at all a hunt to think ...
            1. Artemion3
              Artemion3 April 5 2021 10: 30
              0
              I agree, Karakurt, rather for the near sea zone, but there are also rocket boats such as gadflies, and even better one 22350 than three karakurt
      7. PSih2097
        PSih2097 April 2 2021 20: 09
        +1
        Quote: Stas157
        And it seems to me quite affordable. If the elite sit down on a "hungry" ration.

        If they sit down on rations, then not only the army and the navy will be built, there will be full gasification, electrification, and all roads will be made ...
        Of course, the cost of repairs, to create infrastructure

        And so, yes - the fleet starts from the place of basing and repair (that is, from the naval base) ...
    3. zenion
      zenion 8 June 2021 23: 17
      0
      After Stalin, there was everything, so the beetle Khrushch gnawed everything.
  2. Pessimist22
    Pessimist22 April 2 2021 05: 09
    +7
    Taking into account inflation, kickbacks and theft of money on the ground, it will be more expensive.
    1. English tarantas
      English tarantas April 2 2021 05: 36
      +1
      In addition, the VAT was surprised, for the first time I hear that VAT orders are being placed on defense. Meaning? The state pays taxes to private owners for weapons for state needs, but sets VAT which it collects itself. Like, here's more money for you, but give it back. I can only explain it this way - first we buy with VAT, and then, like, in support of the manufacturer in difficult times, we remove from him the obligation to pay this tax, the money sailed away after the fleet.
      1. Pessimist22
        Pessimist22 April 2 2021 05: 44
        +5
        They have enough schemes, everything is worked out smile
        1. English tarantas
          English tarantas April 2 2021 06: 27
          +1
          The saddest thing is that it would be okay to steal, so in fact they do nothing. Look, as it was with ak12, firstly he won the a-545/762, but he squeezed through in an extremely muddy way, so he was not accepted, and then in an even more muddy way he provided the a-74 sawn and it was accepted, like a-545 road and complex. Although all the standards for reliability and indestructibility have passed (GOST is one), and a modern conscript is quite savvy in technology, they are in no hurry to produce. And how much money was spent to adopt the ak-74
      2. Grandfather
        Grandfather April 2 2021 06: 38
        0
        Quote: English tarantass
        In addition, the VAT was surprised, for the first time I hear that VAT orders are being placed on defense. Meaning?

        days! laughing
      3. alexmach
        alexmach April 2 2021 17: 17
        +2
        In addition, the VAT was surprised, for the first time I hear that VAT orders are being placed on defense. Meaning?

        This is .. enterprises operate in the legal field of the state. And they keep records in accordance with the laws.
        1. English tarantas
          English tarantas April 3 2021 08: 05
          0
          AND? Do you think that all organizations in Russia, according to the law, must maintain and provide the same list of documents?
          1. alexmach
            alexmach April 3 2021 11: 12
            0
            Will you be surprised by this? No, of course not all organizations. Schools and clinics keep a completely different list of documents. Nonprofit organizations hardly report to the tax authorities. But yes, all production organizations conduct accounting in a very similar way, according to the same laws and regulations, and submit the same reports. And this is logical and correct.
      4. Vladimir1155
        Vladimir1155 April 3 2021 08: 32
        -1
        Quote: English tarantass
        VAT surprised

        VAT is a tax on Russians; Americans should also receive their 22 percent from military supplies to the Russian army. that is, we pay vat and give the money to the Americans through the "Sovereign" funds (budget rule) and offshore
        1. English tarantas
          English tarantas April 4 2021 04: 34
          -1
          Here it can be seen from which you have a rating of -9k)
          1. Vladimir1155
            Vladimir1155 April 4 2021 17: 35
            -1
            Quote: English tarantass
            Here it can be seen from what your rating is

            you did not find a single argument, and tried to hide your inability to argue with an attempt to humiliate me? Well, as advertisers say, 75 percent success, or as my old friend said, "if you are criticized, then you are noticed, then you are what you are"
            1. English tarantas
              English tarantas April 6 2021 06: 35
              0
              What should I say to the provocateur? What is the fee, who pays? You are a semi-bot with a set of phrases for stuffing. You yourself did not give a single argument to your exclamations, but you put a minus, here are your arguments, to answer this, alas, pride does not allow.
              1. Vladimir1155
                Vladimir1155 April 6 2021 11: 29
                -2
                Quote: English tarantass
                to answer this, alas, pride does not allow.

                Well, here you are again slipping into personalities and your emotions, but you didn’t say anything about the case, but even my ratings were not too lazy to see ... and in general I am so worried about you ... much more than ships and tactics with a strategy .. ... and all members of the totalitarian destructive sect of aircraft carrier witnesses are as follows, about provocations and other insults, who calls themselves names like that ...
  3. Vladimir_2U
    Vladimir_2U April 2 2021 05: 19
    +4
    The creation of "Vikramaditya" demonstrated that we did not lose our skills either in the part of special deck covering, or in the part of aerofinishers, or in the part of flight control systems that ensure the takeoff and landing of aircraft on the deck.
    It is very optimistic, in my opinion, that Vick was handed over to India in 2013, since then nothing has been done on the topic.
    1. Vladimir_2U
      Vladimir_2U April 2 2021 05: 29
      +6
      To the article "Preparing Russia for a military failure at the strategic level," I alone can not add comments?
      1. Sling cutter
        Sling cutter April 2 2021 05: 38
        +3
        Quote: Vladimir_2U
        I alone can not add comments?

        It looks like there are two of us wink
    2. English tarantas
      English tarantas April 2 2021 05: 38
      +2
      In general, yes, taking into account how it was built and when it was. But the technologies are not lost at all, there is a prospect of restoring from a complete scratch.
    3. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      April 2 2021 06: 16
      +4
      Quote: Vladimir_2U
      It is very optimistic, in my opinion, that Vick was handed over to India in 2013, since then nothing has been done on the topic.

      Vikramaditya made a factory, which before that did not even know what aircraft-carrying ships were. Everything worked out, the ship serves, and, oddly enough, the Indians are happy with it. And what should have been done? If in terms of take-off / landing systems, it has been done, we are working on this topic. If in terms of coverage / aerofinishers, then we know how to make them, what else is needed? :) By the way, according to some data, work is also underway on electromagnetic catopusters.
      1. Vladimir_2U
        Vladimir_2U April 2 2021 06: 21
        +3
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        If in terms of coverage / aerofinishers, then we know how to make them, what else is needed?
        "Kuznetsov" in Syria showed that there was a problem with the SA / finishers.
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          April 2 2021 07: 27
          +7
          Quote: Vladimir_2U
          "Kuznetsov" in Syria showed that there was a problem with the SA / finishers.

          There is a question about the quality of a specific batch of cables that were purchased for the aerofinisher. It looks like the plant "saved", or for some other reason put a defect.
      2. antivirus
        antivirus April 2 2021 08: 13
        0
        all from the subconscious - and the fleet - from Peskov (who has a mustache).
        there is also the director of the soda plant, who gives water to the salted Cheburashkas - he does not need a fleet, either.
        perfect fleet is the opposite of perfect enrichment. this is mentioned by many here.
        but everyone is silent about the ideal manager.
        And Peskov is not the main culprit for the problems of the fleet.
        empty disputes with tablets.
        I wrote once - DELIVERY TO THE KIROV OR ORENBURG REGION OF ROCKETS IS CHEAPER THAN IN MURMAN AND VLADIVOSTOK (AND BEYOND P-KAMCHATSKY) and the removal of spent nuclear materials.
        the price of the fleet will always be higher than the price of the land-based solutions. the geography is the same in Eurasia.

        first - the control of Eurasia - the girls on the 17th place (from "17 Moments of Spring")
      3. Knell wardenheart
        Knell wardenheart April 2 2021 13: 02
        +1
        Well, this is from the category "not to fat, I would live" - ​​it would be difficult for the Indians to be dissatisfied with this ship, for them this is a status ship, like for us "Kuznetsov". It is difficult to say what is its real combat value and convenience in performing any tasks. All the same, this is far from the best design from the power point of view, from the point of view of the size of the wing, the degree of technological perfection "for the task" - when compared with Western aircraft carriers.
        Until it is used for its intended purpose and swims for itself - yes, why not be satisfied. But how will you need it in terms of functionality ...
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          April 2 2021 13: 22
          +2
          Quote: Knell Wardenheart
          Well, this is from the category "not to fat, I would live" - ​​it would be difficult for the Indians to be dissatisfied with this ship

          It seems that it is difficult for them to be dissatisfied with our planes and tanks, but on a regular basis they are still dissatisfied with them.
    4. Grandfather
      Grandfather April 2 2021 06: 44
      -4
      Quote: Vladimir_2U
      The creation of "Vikramaditya" demonstrated that we did not lose our skills either in the part of special deck covering, or in the part of aerofinishers, or in the part of flight control systems that ensure the takeoff and landing of aircraft on the deck.
      It is very optimistic, in my opinion, that Vick was handed over to India in 2013, since then nothing has been done on the topic.

      yeah ... take care of it ... after delivery, all the boilers fell down, bricks !!! OU !!! this is joke. altered ... I don’t think it’s better, I suppose, on the sly, at night, they put their people around. in the vastness of the "web" is difficult to find, but you can, remove everything.
  4. Jacket in stock
    Jacket in stock April 2 2021 06: 03
    +2
    I made serious assumptions in favor of increasing the cost of literally all types of military equipment

    Ага.
    And then he took it and divided it by 40.
    In an era of accelerating scientific and technological progress ?!
    On a good level, all electronics should be thrown out every 5 years and replaced with a new one.
    Although, what am I talking about.
    Our equipment is developed for 10 years and then it is brought to mind for another 10 years, and then the first copy is being built at the plant for another 10 years ...
    And then it should serve for another 40 years?
    1. Grandfather
      Grandfather April 2 2021 06: 05
      +3
      Military Review Opinions
      Preparing Russia for military failure at the strategic level
      Today, 04: 14
      - even commenting was forbidden ... it did not go according to Feng Shui ...
    2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      April 2 2021 06: 09
      +3
      Quote: Jacket in stock
      And then he took it and divided it by 40.

      Yes - average annual consumption at current prices. What confuses you?
      Quote: Jacket in stock
      In an era of accelerating scientific and technological progress ?!

      Yes.
      Quote: Jacket in stock
      For good, all electronics should be thrown out every 5 years and replaced with a new one.

      This is not done by any country in the world. Electronics on the ships of the same American Navy are updated only during the overhaul period, and even then not all of them.
      1. Grandfather
        Grandfather April 2 2021 06: 19
        -7
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        Quote: Jacket in stock
        For good, all electronics should be thrown out every 5 years and replaced with a new one.

        This is not done by any country in the world. Electronics on the ships of the same American Navy are updated only during the overhaul period, and even then not all of them.

        we have Andryukha, from "analogs" to "numbers" you know how to where ... if they hadn't stolen, then "the process would have gone." develop: do you remember, from our MiG 25 (almost all analog), the Americans went crazy, and then, after analyzing everything, they realized that this plane will survive even a nuclear strike and will remain usable, unlike any "semiconductors and microcircuits." what's wrong with that now?
    3. Paul
      Paul April 2 2021 14: 17
      +2
      I agree with you. The author, assuming the possibility of a simple - linear distribution of expenses / investments, forgets that the real volume of investments at the initial stage is always greater than at the end of any project. Of course, he made an important reservation about the costs of R&D and personnel, but such a reservation can objectively radically change the timing of the start of work and the nature of the operation of equipment. And, as you said, the author did not take into account the fact of possible breakthrough solutions in scientific and technological progress, which could significantly affect the plans. And another important point - in the author's reasoning, we see an understandable attention of flotophiles to the problem of rehabilitating the costs of the fleet, but here we observe a kind of western bias in assessing the strength of the state exclusively in the economy. It is clear that we are not talking about "spiritual bonds", but about how to use this "economic power". So just finding money is not enough, you need to be able to use it, and this is the problem of government management. Governance of the state predetermines the presence of strengths / weaknesses of the country. Taking into account the specifics of the country's elite, namely the management style, mistakes in management, the inability to really manage the economy (for example, to develop domestic demand as a guarantee of the country's wealth), the ability to adapt to progress, the amounts may not easily grow, but be spent on making outright nonsense and then no calculations will not help. As a result, personally, to my deeply respected author, I want to say that in order to really make the Russian fleet strong, it is necessary to start not with the port and industrial infrastructure, but with the infrastructure of the government. The latter does not mean revolution, but presupposes the desire of the elite to live primarily for the Motherland.
      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        April 2 2021 14: 38
        +3
        Quote: Paul
        As a result, personally, to my deeply respected author, I want to say that in order to really make the Russian fleet strong, it is necessary to start not with the port and industrial infrastructure, but with the infrastructure of the government.

        I already had articles on these topics :))))))
        Quote: Paul
        The author, assuming the possibility of a simple - linear distribution of expenses / investments, forgets that the real volume of investments at the initial stage is always greater than at the end of any project.

        In the case of military orders, things are not so bad. And I proposed to spend some preparatory period, several years, during which up to 400 billion (or even more) can be directed to the preparation
        Quote: Paul
        Of course, he made an important reservation about the costs of R&D and personnel, but such a reservation can objectively radically change the timing of the start of work and the nature of the operation of equipment.

        It's just that, as we can see, they are financed by a separate line in the expenses of the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation for GPV. That is, in addition to the amounts calculated by me, we will be able to claim money on this line of expenses
        Quote: Paul
        And, as you said, the author did not take into account the fact of possible breakthrough solutions in scientific and technological progress, which could significantly affect the plans.

        These things are taken into account simply - for some breakthroughs, preliminary work must be started long before they are implemented. So all this can be planned. And if at some point something happens suddenly - well, no one bothers to change plans for the current situation.
        1. Paul
          Paul April 2 2021 14: 50
          +4
          Appreciate for the comment. I understand perfectly well that the idea of ​​your article was not to develop a draft budget for signature, but an attempt to convey to your opponents the economic validity of your views on the size of the fleet and its place in the RF Armed Forces, as well as justification of the reality of its creation. Your article is like an explanatory note to the draft design of a complex construction object, explaining why this project is necessary and can be done in exactly the way the author sees. Not sharing your point of view on the size of the fleet and its role for Russia, I pay tribute to your systematic approach, which makes you look for valid arguments against.
          1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
            April 2 2021 18: 50
            +4
            Thank you, Pavel!
            Very often people who do not share my views are not at all inclined to take into account the argumentation that I set out in my articles. The more pleasant are the exceptions to this sad rule.
            1. VladGTN
              VladGTN April 3 2021 21: 11
              0
              Good article, thanks to Andrey as always. But in my opinion, there is one point that has been missed. Who will serve on all this wealth? The training of officers also takes time and money. And there are fewer military schools in comparison with Soviet times.
              1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                April 3 2021 21: 44
                0
                Quote: VladGTN
                But in my opinion there is one point that has been missed. Who will serve on all this wealth? The training of officers also takes time and money.

                Of course, but increasing the release of officers is not such a difficult and expensive issue.
  5. sergo1914
    sergo1914 April 2 2021 06: 20
    +6
    Good article. But now screeching and spitting bandar logs will roll up .... they have a lot of emotions, but little brains and little reasoning. Let's read it. Let's throw it up.
    1. Angry Alt-Right
      Angry Alt-Right April 3 2021 00: 38
      0
      Quote: sergo1914
      Good article. But now screeching and spitting bandar logs will roll up .... they have a lot of emotions, but little brains and little reasoning. Let's read it. Let's throw it up.

      Almost a day has passed and where are they all? laughing
      Well, this, of course, if you do not count more than a hundred comments from guests for "evil enemy inspiration."
      1. sergo1914
        sergo1914 April 3 2021 05: 20
        0
        Quote: Angry Alt-Right
        Quote: sergo1914
        Good article. But now screeching and spitting bandar logs will roll up .... they have a lot of emotions, but little brains and little reasoning. Let's read it. Let's throw it up.

        Almost a day has passed and where are they all? laughing
        Well, this, of course, if you do not count more than a hundred comments from guests for "evil enemy inspiration."


        Where are they? Are you seriously?
        1. Angry Alt-Right
          Angry Alt-Right April 3 2021 13: 57
          0
          Quote: sergo1914
          Quote: Angry Alt-Right
          Quote: sergo1914
          Good article. But now screeching and spitting bandar logs will roll up .... they have a lot of emotions, but little brains and little reasoning. Let's read it. Let's throw it up.

          Almost a day has passed and where are they all? laughing
          Well, this, of course, if you do not count more than a hundred comments from guests for "evil enemy inspiration."


          Where are they? Are you seriously?

          Yes, seriously!) Either the commentary thread is tinder, or you are fantasizing .....
  6. rocket757
    rocket757 April 2 2021 06: 21
    +4
    About technology
    Here you can answer right away - yes, we will definitely pull it.
    Let's pull, pull .... and then immediately write IF !!!
    If one, second, third ... fifth, tenth !!!
    Of course, everything is IF and so it is NECESSARY to DO and the sooner the better !!!
    I am for it! Only one additional desire ... let's do everything according to SMART, and not through ... in short, according to SMART!
    1. Narak-zempo
      Narak-zempo April 2 2021 08: 15
      +3
      Enemies interfere with the mind to take up.
      Now we will turn off social networks, it will be easier.
      1. rocket757
        rocket757 April 2 2021 08: 29
        0
        And what, someone just took and turned off?
  7. bandabas
    bandabas April 2 2021 06: 42
    +6
    The problem is not a lack of order, but the presence of enormous corruption and window dressing.
  8. Eug
    Eug April 2 2021 07: 17
    +7
    In short, you need to put things in order. And not only in the navy.
  9. Vladimir1155
    Vladimir1155 April 2 2021 07: 30
    -11%
    Well, I said that Andrei from Chelyabinsk will avoid the question of the expediency of a large surface fleet and large surface ships! my prediction was fully confirmed! Hurrah ! Hurrah! Hurrah! totalitarian destructive sect of aircraft carrier witnesses publicly disgraced! Andrei acts like a thimblegun! like a cunning seller in a shopping center, he imposes an unnecessary thing on you and says "well, you have money for it, then you have to buy it" ..... well, now the specifics, the cost of AB according to Andrey, despite all his efforts, is small rigging equaled almost the entire nuclear submarine fleet. Andrei wants a third of the budgetary pie of the Russian Federation (that's what the sect of aircraft carrier witnesses has betrayed itself.this is what worries her most of all! And not questions of defense capability, security and expediency), while the role of the Navy in the country's security is obviously less than a fifth of the defense capability, and if you count separately from Submarine then the role of the surface navy is reduced to 1-3 percent in defense capability. There are much more important areas. SSBNs need not 12, but 30. NNSs are needed in dozens, the development of Strategic Missile Forces, Air Defense Forces, Aerospace Forces and other types of the Armed Forces is needed ... and the sect of aircraft carrier witnesses wants to strike a crushing blow on the development of all types of Armed Forces for its destructive totalitarian lust to create AB and battleships = destroyer
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      April 2 2021 07: 40
      +5
      Quote: vladimir1155
      The cost of AB, according to Andrey, despite all his efforts, minor manipulations, equaled almost the entire nuclear submarine fleet.

      laughing drinks
      Vladimir's 2 AB worth 580 billion equaled the cost of an almost nuclear submarine fleet equal to 2 trillion 758 billion.
      Vladimir, I can't even write off this exacerbation of the spring. Would you tie up with heavy drugs, this is a bad thing
      1. Vladimir1155
        Vladimir1155 April 2 2021 08: 01
        -7
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        2 ABs worth 580 billion equaled

        here is how superficial you are, you already have an APL, and therefore you should compare new nuclear submarines and two aircraft carriers, if you have a ruble in your wallet, then you can buy one or the other for a ruble, despite the fact that you already have some more at home products ......... is this new for you? ... I take this opportunity and urge you to finally answer the question about the feasibility, objectives and tactics of using an aircraft carrier, answer 5 questions that one respected opponent asked you in another branch .. and where I stated that you will leave the answer .... which was required to prove! .. and not enter into pots at the expense of prices, .. do not argue more will turn out
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          April 2 2021 08: 46
          +4
          Quote: vladimir1155
          this is how superficial you are, the submarine is already there, and therefore it is necessary to compare the new submarines and two aircraft carriers

          Vladimir, I AGAIN advise you to quit with severe psychostimulants.
          Of the nuclear submarines, we have only 4 SSBNs and Severodvinsk. Another 4 SSBNs and 8 SSGNs (including Kazan) are at some stage of delivery / construction, and the money for them has not yet been paid in full. Two SSBNs contracted but not pledged
          In addition, to reach the level of my table, you need to build 2 SSBNs, 3 SSGNs and 32 PLATs, which are not what are not laid down, not contracted. That is, out of the 56 nuclear submarines I have designated, there are as many as 5, 12 are under construction, and 37 have not even started yet.
          But in your ... well, I don't know the substances that you use in the world, we already have a nuclear submarine laughing
          Moreover. The thesis itself shows that you have failed in the economics of the fleet, and do not understand the product life cycle.
          Quote: vladimir1155
          if you have a ruble in your wallet, then you can buy one or the other for a ruble, despite the fact that you already have some other products at home ......... is this new to you? ...

          It's new to me that an adult can be guided by such "logic".
          You have a goal - let's say you need to live to see your paycheck. You have resources - these are provisions at home (at a price, say, in a ruble) and a ruble in cash. And this will either be enough to fulfill the goal, or not.
          1. The comment was deleted.
            1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              April 2 2021 13: 07
              +4
              Quote: vladimir1155
              do not juggle so publicly ...

              I have already voiced my recommendations to you
              Quote: vladimir1155
              that is, 25, excluding triplets and rehabilitated ones ...

              Vladimir, when will you come to your senses already? All nuclear submarines of older types will be abandoned in the next 20 years. In order to receive at least 2060 nuclear submarines by 56, they need to be built.
        2. Niko
          Niko April 2 2021 10: 56
          +1
          Quote: vladimir1155
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          2 ABs worth 580 billion equaled

          here is how superficial you are, you already have an APL, and therefore you should compare new nuclear submarines and two aircraft carriers, if you have a ruble in your wallet, then you can buy one or the other for a ruble, despite the fact that you already have some more at home products ......... is this new for you? ... I take this opportunity and urge you to finally answer the question about the feasibility, objectives and tactics of using an aircraft carrier, answer 5 questions that one respected opponent asked you in another branch .. and where I stated that you will leave the answer .... which was required to prove! .. and not enter into pots at the expense of prices, .. do not argue more will turn out

          A "respected opponent" who asked himself questions in a neighboring thread had enough of a few reasonable comments, and references to the previous articles he had missed. And commentators like you really need to see a doctor in a timely manner.
          1. Vladimir1155
            Vladimir1155 April 2 2021 11: 07
            -6
            Quote: Niko
            who asked himself questions in a neighboring thread, a few reasonable comments were enough, and a reference to

            that's exactly your tactic of avoiding direct reasoned answers aside .... referring to ...... since you cannot answer specifically and clearly and you know it ...
            1. Niko
              Niko April 2 2021 11: 26
              0
              Quote: vladimir1155
              Quote: Niko
              who asked himself questions in a neighboring thread, a few reasonable comments were enough, and a reference to

              that's exactly your tactic of avoiding direct reasoned answers aside .... referring to ...... since you cannot answer specifically and clearly and you know it ...

              I understand: reading is not for you and not for your favorite "authors" to read more than a comment is already a difficulty.
              1. Vladimir1155
                Vladimir1155 April 2 2021 11: 48
                -7
                Quote: Niko
                reading is not for you and not for your favorite "authors" to read more than a comment is already a difficulty.

                firstly, adequate authors also write articles smarter than you and me and than your leaders of the aircraft carrier sect ... and secondly, you are not too lazy to scribble comments about me .. but to answer 5 questions are you weak?
      2. vvvjak
        vvvjak April 2 2021 08: 27
        +2
        Andrey, good morning. I read your articles with interest, and, as always, there is another request for you (or rather a wish). In this article, you have reasonably calculated the cost of the fleet, but abstractly (as you can personally see). But if you take a specific task - to ensure the uninterrupted functioning of the NSR, taking into account the possible opposition of hostile fleets along the way. By the NSR, I do not mean the delivery of LNG to Yamal-China, but as an alternative to the route through the Suez Canal, i.e. China-Europe. Here, as I understand it, there will be more issues of increasing the icebreaker fleet, tanker (ice class) and logistics facilities along the way.
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          April 2 2021 08: 48
          +7
          Good morning, Vladimir!
          Quote: vvvjak
          But if you take a specific task - to ensure the uninterrupted functioning of the NSR, taking into account the possible opposition of hostile fleets along the way.

          There is no such task.
          Quote: vvvjak
          By the NSR, I do not mean the delivery of LNG to Yamal-China, but as an alternative to the route through the Suez Canal, i.e. China-Europe.

          You see, the NSR is not and will never be an alternative to the Suez, because the NSR is significantly more expensive. Second, if a miracle suddenly happens and happens, then ships of other powers will walk on it. Who will attack them? :)
          1. vvvjak
            vvvjak April 2 2021 09: 22
            0
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            There is no such task.

            She is not there today, but what will happen tomorrow? We are considering building a fleet for the next period.
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            You see, the NSR is not and will never be an alternative to the Suez, because the NSR is significantly more expensive.

            Well, never. The Arctic itself is a promising development region and the issue of increasing shipping in this region is a matter of time.
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            Who will attack them? :)

            I am not saying that merchant ships will be drowned, they can simply be blocked in order to return traffic to controlled areas.
            If you do not like the SMP, you can consider any other options. Yes, at least the delivery of LNG from the Russian Federation to South Africa is not important. I just propose to consider any specific (albeit hypothetical) task to ensure the Russian Navy's economic interests.
            1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              April 2 2021 10: 28
              +3
              Quote: vvvjak
              If you do not like the SMP, you can consider any other options. Yes, at least the delivery of LNG from the Russian Federation to South Africa is not important. I just propose to consider any specific (albeit hypothetical) task to ensure the Russian Navy's economic interests.

              I believe that the best provision of the economic interests of the Russian Federation at sea is to very quickly destroy those forces that threaten them. That is, for example, we do not have the task of defending the same Nord Stream gas pipeline, but the task is to destroy the enemy's fleet and naval aviation, which will threaten him with weapons, and to force such an adversary to peace as soon as possible.
  10. Narak-zempo
    Narak-zempo April 2 2021 08: 11
    -14%
    I have already said, and I will repeat it again.
    Huge sums are spent on pensions. For 1 month it will be enough for "Northwind".
    I think that this very pension for 1 month a year can be found a way to withhold, for example, by voluntarily compulsory subscription to a government loan. You can even issue 20-year registered bonds with a good interest rate. And you can even honestly pay the entire amount to those who can present these bonds.
    And yes, we must act quickly, we do not have time to swing.
    1. vvvjak
      vvvjak April 2 2021 09: 33
      -1
      Quote: Narak-zempo
      I think that this very pension for 1 month a year can be found a way to withhold, for example, by voluntarily compulsory subscription to a government loan.

      And get a revolution. As an option: to support the regime of one country (which can hardly be called pro-Russian) $ 100 billion was spent over 10 years (according to Satanovsky). Here's an almost full-fledged fleet.
      1. Narak-zempo
        Narak-zempo April 2 2021 11: 46
        -2
        Quote: vvvjak
        And get a revolution

        We won't get anything. The reform has shown.
        They'll go around, collect the next millions of signatures on rolls of toilet paper and calm down.
        History teaches that revolution requires revolutionary sailors laughing
        And there will be a lot of them only when the fleet is really big and means something.
    2. iv.viktor
      iv.viktor April 28 2021 19: 19
      0
      Manage your money, but I didn’t ask you for mine. This time. But in general, what or whom do you want to protect with this fleet? Do we have a developed economy, industry and technology, or a high standard of living of the population that needs to be protected? Or maybe the nullified one and his oligarchs with their palaces and yachts need to be protected, and a fleet is needed for this?
      1. Narak-zempo
        Narak-zempo April 28 2021 20: 46
        -1
        Quote: iv.viktor
        Manage your money, but I didn’t ask you for mine. This time. But in general, what or whom do you want to protect with this fleet? Do we have a developed economy, industry and technology, or a high standard of living of the population that needs to be protected? Or maybe the nullified one and his oligarchs with their palaces and yachts need to be protected, and a fleet is needed for this?

        And your money is gone.
        There are those that the state gave you in hand to hold.
        And if you need to eat, then the Motherland will not only need your wallet, but also your life will require you to give laughing
  11. Bez 310
    Bez 310 April 2 2021 08: 20
    +13
    The man took the trouble to convince us that money,
    We have knowledge and skills for building a fleet.
    But there is no fleet, and there will not be in the foreseeable future.
    Paradox? No, it's just that life is like this ...
    1. GEOID
      GEOID April 2 2021 20: 06
      0
      MV welcome.
      It will not be until it is clearly stated, "Why is it needed." Exactly
      for a specific country.
      The same applies to MA as a part of the fleet.
      By the way, the topic of KT-1 has gone into a fog. Especially after a few
      posts about the scandal (conflict) in the crew.
      Fenser and Pilot. Nobody pulled their tongue.
  12. The comment was deleted.
  13. ramzay21
    ramzay21 April 2 2021 08: 56
    -1
    Good article. The revival of the Yak 44 would be an excellent, inexpensive and massive solution to the problem of AWACS and the Navy and Air Force.
  14. BAI
    BAI April 2 2021 09: 34
    0
    Already today, with the existing funding of the armed forces, we can afford the construction of a powerful military fleet, including ships of all classes, including aircraft carriers, dozens of nuclear submarines, etc. etc.

    And where is the place of this fleet in military doctrine? His participation is read there between the lines. There are no explicit missions for the fleet. Well, why spend money when, in the event of a global war, everything will be decided by the Strategic Missile Forces, and for local wars a large fleet is not needed.
    The United States clearly states: "The United States must be able to conduct several local military conflicts ANYWHERE in the world." This is where a large fleet is vital. Especially aircraft carriers. Where is Russia going to fight?
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      April 2 2021 10: 30
      +1
      Quote: BAI
      And where is the place of this fleet in military doctrine?

      The first article was written for you, the link to which is present in the text. It contains a squeeze, and if you want a complete picture - read "Decree of the President of the Russian Federation of July 20, 2017 No. 327" On the approval of the Fundamentals of State Policy of the Russian Federation in the field of naval activities for the period up to 2030 "
      1. BAI
        BAI April 2 2021 13: 09
        +2
        Forget this decree. He's about nothing. Advertising declaration. Better see the military budget. If you are too lazy, read Shevtsova: "The main funds will be used to equip the fleet infrastructure in the Arctic and the Far East." By 2030, it is planned to produce 6 diesel submarines and about 100 auxiliary vessels. Where are your cruisers? And the priorities of financing were not sucked out of the thumb, but the military scientific institutes were scientifically substantiated. And financial priorities are the best reflection of the state policy in the field of the fleet. And the need for a fleet.
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          April 2 2021 13: 25
          +2
          Quote: BAI
          And the priorities of financing were not sucked out of the thumb, but the military scientific institutes were scientifically substantiated.

          Is this a joke like that? :))))) It was from the finger that they sucked.
          No need to tell me about the "scientific justification" when we simultaneously build 3 different types of corvettes. "scientifically based", yeah
          1. BAI
            BAI April 2 2021 21: 07
            0
            This is why we build different ones because they are not needed. If there are no tasks for them, what's the difference what to build? And for parades - any will do, if only it was beautiful. This once again confirms that since there are no tasks for the fleet, then there is no need for a fleet.
  15. moreman78
    moreman78 April 2 2021 09: 53
    +2
    I hope the author understands that in order to have 1 aircraft carrier in combat service, you need to have 3 of them? So why is he, one wonders, smears in his dreams 2 aircraft carriers, one piece for each of the oceanic fleets - it makes no sense! With this approach, we get - emptiness at the exit. Aircraft carriers, as it were, are, but the sense from them is ZERO!
    If you are aiming at the presence of aircraft carriers, then you need to keep them in ONE fist, just like large surface ships.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      April 2 2021 10: 33
      +1
      Quote: moreman78
      I hope the author understands that in order to have 1 aircraft carrier in combat service, you need to have 3 of them?

      Yes.
      Quote: moreman78
      So why, one wonders, he smears 2 aircraft carriers in his dreams, one piece for each of the ocean fleets - this is SENSE!

      Of course, it is better to have 3 or more of these ships. But even 2 aircraft carriers, with their competent operation, will permanently give 1 aircraft carrier in service (with KOH = 0,5), which is already good.
      1. moreman78
        moreman78 April 2 2021 10: 38
        +3
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk

        Of course, it is better to have 3 or more of these ships. But even 2 aircraft carriers, with their competent operation, will permanently give 1 aircraft carrier in service (with KOH = 0,5), which is already good.

        I agree that 2 is no longer bad, but I disagree with the fact that they are scattered across two fleets. If there are two of them, then they should all be only - on the Northern Fleet.
        Further, the distribution by the Baltic Fleet - why in the Baltic Sea there are as many as 6 FR? Why are there 14 TSCs there?
        For the Baltic Fleet, 10 modern TSCs are quite enough - 6 units (division) in Baltiysk and 4 in Kronstadt. Frigates can be limited to 3 units, and then I would think ...
        For the Black Sea Fleet - 6 frigates this is normal - the middle-size ship is nearby. But for the Northern Fleet and the Pacific Fleet - you just need to distribute the Baltic frigates, so that we have 9 units there - these are all the same ocean fleets!
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          April 2 2021 13: 04
          +2
          Quote: moreman78
          I agree that 2 is no longer bad, but I disagree with the fact that they are scattered across two fleets.

          This is as much as necessary. In the article, I seem to have written clearly
          I am not at all saying that the Russian Federation needs just such and no other fleet. I do not pretend that I have managed to perfectly balance the numbers and classes of ships and aircraft, and also to correctly distribute them among the fleets.

          Shuffle it as you want :))))
          Another question is that I consider it necessary to separate them, so that both fleets have both a basing infrastructure and experience of interaction with AB.
      2. Dmitry Chelyabinsk
        Dmitry Chelyabinsk April 2 2021 11: 50
        +1
        KOH = 0,5 is not possible, unless there are 2 crews for each aircraft carrier (as on the US Navy SSBN). Families are waiting for officers and contractors at home.
        The Americans have aircraft carriers of about 0,3, no more.
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          April 2 2021 13: 05
          +1
          Quote: Dmitry Chelyabinsk
          KOH = 0,5 is not possible, unless there are 2 crews for each aircraft carrier

          One AB in the ranks and one aircraft carrier on the BS are still different things :)
        2. GEOID
          GEOID April 2 2021 20: 10
          -4
          You are confusing KOH, KRN and KHN.
          (What's wrong with you in Chelyaba ... with Dmitry and Andrey ...
          Although we always said-Chvakushevtsy-woodpeckers ...)))) Humor, if anything.
          1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
            April 3 2021 11: 16
            0
            Quote: GEOID
            You are confusing KOH, KRN and KHN.
            (What's wrong with you in Chelyaba ... with Dmitry and Andrey ...

            Let it be known to you that KOH has two decryptions
            Operating voltage ratio - the ratio of the time that the ship (or several ships) was in the areas of combat mission to the total service life of the ship
            и
            Operational readiness ratio - the probability that the object will be in a working state at a given time and, starting from this moment, will work without failure for a given time interval
            If you do not know this, then these are the problems of your education.
            Quote: GEOID
            Although we always said-Chvakushevtsy-woodpeckers ...)))) Humor, if anything.

            And a sense of humor too.
            1. GEOID
              GEOID April 3 2021 17: 12
              -2
              There was a better opinion of you.
              You can no longer count on my advice and help.
              You do not even understand what I am writing about.

              Semenov.
              1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                April 3 2021 17: 50
                +2
                Quote: GEOID
                There was a better opinion of you.

                Should it upset me?
                Quote: GEOID
                You can no longer count on my advice and help.

                And I counted on? :)))) Where and when?
                Quote: GEOID
                You do not even understand what I am writing about.

                Maybe. And I have no desire to understand. Communication with a person who writes to me for no reason
                Quote: GEOID
                Although we always said-Chvakushevtsy-woodpeckers ...)))) Humor, if anything.

                in general, it interests me very little.
                Quote: GEOID
                Semenov

                So what? Do I faint in horror?
                Firstly, on this site I have never changed my nickname, and have always been Andrey from Chelyabinsk.
                Secondly, if someone thinks that I do not see the banks, etc., then he can write to me about it directly in the comments, if there is such a desire. Well, if there is no desire, then there is no trial.
                Thirdly, I did not teach Bez 310 "how to properly destroy AUG", but someone decided to cut out a part of the screenshot in the most interesting place ...

                The bottom line is that his comment was not at all on the topic of the article. I said that in order to meet the wishes of the government, our fleet must be much more powerful and more numerous than it is now, and include a lot of ships, including effective mine-sweeping forces, SSGNs and submarines, corvettes, destroyers, a revived MPA, and so on. , but including aircraft carriers. And then, he stipulated that the aircraft carriers and MRA - "in the opinion of the author." And in response I received
                Quote: Bez 310
                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 ...

                That is, Bez 310 read the article diagonally, saw the word "aircraft carrier" and that's it - let's swear that they say "there are no minesweepers, what aviks". And if, in the opinion of Mr. Semyonov, this is called "they condescended to him and softly explain", then I will somehow survive without these condescensions and explanations.
                1. GEOID
                  GEOID April 3 2021 18: 27
                  -1
                  The question is closed.
                  1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                    April 3 2021 19: 11
                    0
                    Quote: GEOID
                    The question is closed.

                    I am glad. All the best!
  16. Artashes
    Artashes April 2 2021 10: 29
    -4
    ABOUT WHAT PROGRAMS (NOT ONLY MILITARY-INDUSTRIAL) - THEIR IMPLEMENTATION IS POSSIBLE TO SPEAK ABOUT WHEN THE AUTHORITIES FACILITATES THE FURTHER FALL OF THE RUBLE-FREEDOM OF EVERYTHING AND EVERYTHING ??? REALLY SO A COMPETENT AUTHOR DOESN'T SEE THIS? OR AGAIN - WE CLOSE EYES, IMITATE MOTION?
    Geographically, the Russian Federation can SIMPLY lock up near (and even in the distance) oceans, tk. The current RF has almost no DIRECT exits there: look at the geographical map. WHY "QUASI-SPANISH ARMADA" in these conditions? Basically - only for the "fattening" of officials and "Serdyukovs" in this area.
    The authorities of the Russian Federation cannot or (rather ...) do not want to provide the Russian Federation with REAL allies, at least in the former USSR: EVEN ANY DECISIONS ARE NOT TAKING ABOUT AMERICAN BIOLABORATORIES IN ALMOST ALL EX-USSR - EVEN IN THE MEMBERS OF THE ODKB KAZAKHSTAN, ARMENIA.
    NO REAL WORK WITH THESE COUNTRIES IS NOT PERFORMED, except for declarations, banquets, visits, conferences, hugs ...
    CHRONICALLY "TOOTHLESS" FOREIGN POLICY AND "DOLLAR" ECONOMIC POLICY NEVER PAYS FOR ANY "ARMADS OF ARMAMENTS" - SUCH HISTORY AND REALITY.
    With such a "policy", the result is and will be the same as in Eastern Europe, when the "brothers" of the VMIH turned out to be, in fact, ENEMIES: WHAT IS OBJECTIVELY SAID IN THE PUBLICATION OF THE MILITARY REVIEW dated March 29 of this year. in the Opinions section - see https://topwar.ru/181402-kogo-bojalis-nashi-ideologi-v-svoej-evrope.html ("Who were our ideologists in Eastern Europe afraid of?").
  17. Niko
    Niko April 2 2021 11: 00
    +2
    Good article. Special thanks to Andrey for the fact that he does not stoop to "overly emotional" attacks towards his opponents on the site (than They, opponents suffer constantly)
  18. TermNachTer
    TermNachTer April 2 2021 12: 27
    0
    In matters of state defense and people's survival, there is no such thing as expensive. Those who could not protect themselves disappeared from the pages of history. There are more than enough people who want to plunder Russia.
  19. EvilLion
    EvilLion April 2 2021 12: 29
    -3
    Using open sources, I compiled a small table of prices for our various weapons


    When I studied at the institute and did not have my own earnings, I also liked to take price lists in computer stores and look at the prices of all sorts of newfangled Pentium-4 and GeForce-3.


    Now I have the money, but I don't want to watch the prices and the car, apparently, is upgraded due to the appearance of BSODs, and not because Serious Sam 4 is so disgustingly optimized that it slows down on 4 cores.
  20. EvilLion
    EvilLion April 2 2021 12: 36
    -1
    A concept is needed, and not within the framework of the 10-year GPV program, but 40-50 years ahead


    Of course, I understand everything that I am very eager to accuse the authorities of short-sightedness, but it would be interesting for me to look at a young (40 years old) talented general in 1900, if he was in the army of 1950. Here the peasant would have had a blow from amazement. Forecasters, damn it.

    And so garbage, it's easy to take 10% of the defense budget for no reason. It only seems that little, if you take from R&D, then this means curtailing a bunch of everything more important.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      April 2 2021 13: 32
      +6
      Quote: EvilLion
      Of course, I understand everything that I am very eager to accuse the authorities of short-sightedness, but it would be interesting for me to look at a young (40 years old) talented general in 1900, if he was in the army of 1950.

      And what does 1900 have to do with it? Then progress marched forward by leaps and bounds. I have already given a simple example - in 1933 we began to develop the main fighter of the Air Force I-15, and in 1934 it went into series. Today everything is much slower, and if we began to create the Su-2001 in 57, then the first serial flew (but, disgustingly, not far) already in 2019. Hence the need to look to the future for decades.
      1. EvilLion
        EvilLion April 2 2021 14: 24
        -4
        Well, the Su-57 is being created for decades, while, unlike the Americans, who planned the F-35 program right up to 2070, but in fact they did it and were forced to order a large batch of F-15s, we did not even try into such projects, in which "all inclusive" is simply due to the understanding that the political and economic situations, even 10 years ahead, are difficult to predict, and we have a choice between the possibility of having 200-400 Su-57s in 2040, if we lead this project, and not have them at all, if not do. At the same time, we know how to use aircraft, but how to use the fleet is still a question.
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          April 2 2021 14: 28
          +2
          Quote: EvilLion
          Well, the Su-57 is being created for decades.

          and ships - too :)))) But the question is not that, but that now there is a very large interval between the start of work on a new technique and its receipt. This is how ships at the beginning of the twentieth century could serve for 40 years, but taking into account the relatively short design and construction period, 5-10-year programs were quite enough. Although the same Germans with their "Law on the Fleet" well, that's definitely not wrong
          1. EvilLion
            EvilLion April 2 2021 14: 41
            -3
            The ship built in 1910 in 1940 looked quite frivolous. Unless it's an auxiliary trough, or a dreadnought.

            Once again, what tasks the Su-57 solves, we know what tasks the fleet solves, we do not know. Even the deployment of 2.5 submarines with nuclear missiles has no particular significance against the background of ground forces for strategic nuclear forces. The Navy will not help us in any way in the overwhelming number of possible wars, and the development of missile weapons will only devalue ships as a means of far-reaching.

            I'm not going to somehow discuss the quality of the corvettes and their equipment, but in fact, if the Ministry of Defense believed that the fleet was needed, then the money would be found. Even aircraft carriers would be found if the admirals could show that this is really needed.
            1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              April 3 2021 11: 10
              +1
              Quote: EvilLion
              I'm not going to somehow discuss the quality of the corvettes and their equipment, but in fact, if the Ministry of Defense believed that the fleet was needed, then the money would be found

              As far as I understand, GPV-2011-2020 where until 2020 should have entered into a sow
              1) 10 SSBNs;
              2) 10 SSGNs;
              3) 20 non-nuclear submarines,
              4) 14 frigates
              5) 35 corvettes
              and so on and so forth, you do not think for the opinion of the Ministry of Defense. You will decide please, or the Ministry of Defense is scientifically approaching the creation of a fleet (and then the same 35 corvettes are needed) or it cannot find money for them :)))))
              1. EvilLion
                EvilLion April 3 2021 19: 21
                0
                And here I have another question for you. If the Ministry of Defense justified the need for all this, which in fact is not very much, I would even say about nothing, "a coastal defense raft", well, frigates with corvettes are certainly needed to protect caravans in Syria, but the industry is 50-70 percent from this it has filled up, then why do you think that we can take all this and build it simply by investing a hundred or two billion rubles? And why shouldn't we build planes instead, since the industry does not fill up everything with them, and even fulfills 100% of key programs.
                1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                  April 3 2021 19: 50
                  +1
                  Quote: EvilLion
                  And here I have another question for you.

                  You do not know, by chance, why my opponents in 99% of cases, when they cannot answer the question I have asked, they themselves ask me another question? :)))
                  Quote: EvilLion
                  If the Ministry of Defense justified the need for all this, which in fact is not very much, I would even say about nothing, "coastal defense raft"

                  it's just a 10 year program. The rearmament of the fleet did not end there :)))
                  Quote: EvilLion
                  but the industry failed 50-70 percent of this

                  Everything is much worse performance there up to 40% and below
                  Quote: EvilLion
                  then why do you think that we can take all this and build just by investing a hundred or two billion rubles?

                  For a variety of reasons.
                  Firstly, my program for building a fleet, oddly enough, is much more modest :)))) for example, 56 nuclear submarines in 40 years is 14 submarines in 10 years, the bulk of which I propose to build with relatively small PLATS. And GPV 2011-2020 provided for the construction of 20 nuclear submarines over the same 10 years, and much of a much larger size. I suggested building 16 diesel-electric submarines for the entire 40-year period, and we wanted 20 diesel-electric submarines in 10 years, etc.
                  Secondly, then the military-industrial complex was in a completely exhausted state - from 1991 to 2010, crumbs fell to it, and it was impossible to take and start large series just like that. Now it is a completely different matter, enterprises have to a certain extent restored their working capacity.
                  Thirdly, in that period, there was often nothing to produce - many of the products that needed to be installed on ships could not be delivered to GOS-s - again, the heavy legacy of the 90s and early 2000s. Now many of these systems have already been finished and can go into series (the same POLIMENT-redoubt), but in general, since the beginning of 2011, much more is being invested in R&D than before, that is, we should expect improvements from what happened.
                  Quote: EvilLion
                  Why do you think that we can take all this and build just by investing a hundred or two billion rubles? And why shouldn't we build planes instead, since the industry does not fill up everything with them, and even fulfills 100% of key programs.

                  If you need trousers, but they are not in the store, you are unlikely to buy shoes instead.
                  In addition, I would not call the situation with airplanes so rosy - there are enough of their own problems. Do you think that in vain our Air Force Commanders-in-Chief since 2015 or even earlier promised the serial production of the Su-57 next year? :)
                  1. EvilLion
                    EvilLion April 3 2021 19: 58
                    0
                    The su-57 commanders did not promise anything, but left-wing people like Rogozin did.

                    Now it is a completely different matter, enterprises have to a certain extent restored their working capacity.


                    Are there any projects in the navy that have ALREADY completed at least 80%?

                    If you need trousers, but they are not in the store, you are unlikely to buy shoes instead.


                    Do we really need them? There may be enough panties and tights, but you just need a lot of high-quality shoes.
                    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                      April 3 2021 20: 04
                      +1
                      Quote: EvilLion
                      The su-57 commanders did not promise anything

                      Come on:))))
                      The fighter of the fifth generation PAK FA T-50, which was named Su-57 in serial production, is scheduled to be put into service in the 2018 year. He successfully passed the test, and very soon the pilots will begin to develop and exploit it.

                      Said by Bondarev in 2017
                      Quote: EvilLion
                      Are there any projects in the navy that have ALREADY completed at least 80%?

                      885M, Project 22350 frigate - generally 100%, "Borey-A" - 100% ... (by technology, not by quantity in GPV 2011-2020)
                      As for whether the fleet is needed or not ... I think that the government is needed, oddly enough - too.
                      1. EvilLion
                        EvilLion April 3 2021 21: 19
                        -1
                        I do not know the word planned, I know the word "contract" and its derivatives. However, in 2018 there were contracts, only, as you know, the first copy was dropped.

                        not by quantity


                        Well, then what to talk about.
                      2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                        April 3 2021 21: 43
                        +1
                        Quote: EvilLion
                        I do not know the word is planned, I know the word "contract

                        I also know a lot of different words :)))) But the point is that the Su-57 was promised in the series by no means only
                        Quote: EvilLion
                        leftist people like Rogozin

                        Quote: EvilLion
                        Well, then what to talk about.

                        In my opinion, there is nothing more. You completely ignore the arguments of the interlocutor
  • CTABEP
    CTABEP April 2 2021 12: 39
    +1
    We have the means, we do not have enough mind (s)
  • Knell wardenheart
    Knell wardenheart April 2 2021 12: 56
    +1
    Finally, an article with an economic perspective on the creation of a fleet came out! I have been waiting for a long time and thanks to the author for this! This is not the first time I have added cold water to articles on creating a strong fleet precisely because of the economic difficulties associated with this. Probably it will be necessary here as well.

    So, you have deduced a figure of the order of 400 lard per year (in the case of annual receipts in a very long period of time and the strategy of a leisurely construction of the fleet) and a figure of about 12 trillion (if I did not miss the chain of reflections on the prices of ammunition, etc., following the figure in 9.3 trillion). The author decided to postpone questions about the price of R&D, repair, infrastructure construction - I understand, it will not work out here, but I think there will be one more problem - the problem of the desynchronization of the creation rates and, therefore, the desynchronization of investment volumes.
    This means that we cannot slowly create the infrastructure for creating large ships - because without this infrastructure as a whole, we cannot create the ships themselves. In an inferior or dispersed form, this infrastructure will impose enormous logistical and storage problems, which will result in very large sums. A number of enterprises in connection with such large-scale orders will have to be created from zero, a number will have to be modernized, a number will have to be expanded. Insufficient investment and emphasis on time in this will increase the out-of-sync. This is the first problem that I see - At least 0 years, you will have to invest more than 5 lard per year, much more.

    The second problem is R&D issues. Even if we have theoretical ideas about the appearance of the fleet, we proceed from the assumption that we will be building a long-term fleet for 40 years. Therefore, it is necessary to conduct large-scale research on topics related to trends, the potential for modernization, if we are talking about large orders for new ships, then probably the issue of unification of units. All this is inevitable and in a large series will result in R&D issues of a certain unification of manufacturers. Finally, if we are talking about aircraft carriers, we will need to create a deck version of an aircraft, catapults, if the aircraft carrier is nuclear, then a military version of the reactor for such a large ship - taking into account security, peak loads, etc. A number of these R&D projects will also need to be carried out long before the direct construction of the fleet, and some, in general, even before the active modernization of enterprises for this task. That is, most of the R&D expenditures will go in parallel with the expenditures on the renovation industry. and infra (and the smaller part needs to be carried out, as they say, today) - which ultimately will add amounts to the annual tranches of the first ~ 5 years.

    The third problem is Taxation Issues. A long-term program will require a stable source of funding. Taking into account the surges in oil prices and force majeure sanctions, only new taxes can be such a source. Our tax burden is already considerable, and the amounts obtained by taxes in the first 5 years will be very non-acidic - who are we going to burden? I will note that at the moment we have social tension and a post-covid breakdown, new taxes will be perceived with hostility for quite a long time (just remember how much boiling was from the VAT increase by 2%)

    The fourth problem is Inflation issues. If we increase taxes to create such a fleet, it dampens profitability within the country and dampens economic growth - acting as an additional factor in the growth of inflation (economists forgive me for such clumsy wording). Now our economy is not growing and inflation is about 5%, therefore, if we are talking about long-term projects (more than 5-10 years), we will have to take this factor into account, and it is definitely against us, because we have no prerequisites for growth, then there will be at best the same as now. Any long-term construction associated with higher taxes runs the risk of turning into a swamp devouring money a la "Vostochny". The first five years of shock preparatory expenses will definitely contribute to inflation, and therefore the amount can be safely added to it.

    Z. all of this "on a vskidku", the picture is sad in fact. It seems to be yes, in terms of money it is theoretically elevated, but it turns out more and more strained.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      April 2 2021 13: 37
      0
      Quote: Knell Wardenheart
      At least 5 years, you will have to invest more than 400 lard per year, much more.

      You can ask where these numbers come from? :))))
      The construction of aircraft carriers and nuclear submarines in the number I calculated will be mastered by one Sevmash after the completion of the loading basin. We are building diesel-electric submarines much faster than it is necessary for the given figures. Frigates and corvettes can be built at the facilities of the Baltic, ChM, DV - they are now underutilized, and significantly. 40 corvettes, this is one corvette a year - there are no problems at all.
      1. Knell wardenheart
        Knell wardenheart April 2 2021 14: 03
        0
        The 385,5 billion rubles we calculated make up only 35,5% of the total expenditures of the RF Armed Forces under this item!


        Well rounded up to 400, sorry! Taking into account the peculiarities of pricing in large state. orders, I think closer to 400 and will be at best.

        I am definitely not a naval expert and I don’t know any important details that the experts will know. However, it is quite clear to me that if we were going to build a NEW aircraft carrier according to a NEW project, based on two criteria - that it would not be a "wedding general" but a highly efficient combat ship, and that it would be a ship designed for these very 50 years in service + -, with adequate time and reliability of the power plant and conceptually much less compromise than the aircraft carrier we have. That is, if we do not want to sculpt a high-quality and strong ship, its dimensions, materials, power plant and, probably, the ways of combining all this together should be somewhat different from the remains of the Soviet reserve. This is what I mean by the concept of "modernization" - if we need a ship with which just to hold out for a year, and two to stand - this is one thing, if we make a program for 40-50 years, then this is another.
        The infrastructure cost should also include the repair capacity for these ships - the convulsions observed associated with the repair of Kuznetsov do not inspire confidence that everything is so good here. You can argue for a long time that something will unfortunately go out of sight. But one thing is, in principle, clear - the numbers that you indicated is "at a minimum" in conditions close to ideal. I deliberately do not consider the subjective factors associated with corruption, theft and the struggle for the trough in the defense budget between different types of the Armed Forces.
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          April 2 2021 14: 08
          +1
          Quote: Knell Wardenheart
          Well rounded up to 400, sorry

          Yes, I'm not talking about that :)))) You brought it to the infrastructure with the modernization of production
          Quote: Knell Wardenheart
          At least 5 years, you will have to invest more than 400 lard per year, much more.

          So I'm wondering where
          1. Knell wardenheart
            Knell wardenheart April 2 2021 14: 18
            +2
            Well, if we go from the opposite - you brought in general a rather large state order for the fleet, and you say that no, we will not have to expand and modernize production for this order from the word at all? Well, like we have everything - workers are sitting in empty and modern workshops, smoking a pipe in anticipation of this super order? Or that we will be able to do a modern fleet with a backlog of 40 years at the current capacities as a whole - nothing is needed, modern technologies and their development into the forest, the expansion of contractors' capacities also into the forest, do I understand you correctly?
            It’s clear that it will be necessary to increase the number of specialists and improve the existing capacities - but the question of the scale of all this and the impact on prices will directly depend on how good a fleet we want to build, in what time frame, what potential we want to lay in this fleet and how much R&D findings will be in demand.
            1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              April 2 2021 14: 32
              +1
              Quote: Knell Wardenheart
              Well, if we go from the opposite - you brought in general a rather large state order for the fleet, and you say that no, we will not have to expand and modernize production for this order from the word at all?

              It is necessary, but not for 2 trillion. rub.
              Quote: Knell Wardenheart
              like we have everything - workers are sitting in empty and modern workshops, smoking a pipe in anticipation of this super order?

              Close to this. Today, shipbuilding capacities are loaded, depending on the enterprise, from 50 to 70%
    2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      April 2 2021 13: 52
      0
      Quote: Knell Wardenheart
      Now our economy is not growing and inflation is about 5%, therefore if we are talking about long-term projects (more than 5-10 years), we will have to take this factor into account, and it is definitely against us

      Not quite. With inflation, prices rise, and with prices - the amount of taxes
      1. Knell wardenheart
        Knell wardenheart April 2 2021 14: 23
        +1
        It depends on what taxes we will finance this whole enterprise and whom we will "milk". The acceleration of inflation and changes in the structure of the market are possible due to the introduction of taxes - we will receive fees lower than necessary when inflation is above a certain base.
        I am not saying that this can "ditch" the project, I just point out that it is incorrect to ignore this factor in long-term construction. When I walk through my neighborhood, I see several buildings that are almost completed, the developers of which have not fully calculated the impact of inflation on prices - and as a result, the engine did not deliver. This is a rather dangerous factor, as for me.
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          April 2 2021 14: 30
          +4
          Quote: Knell Wardenheart
          It depends on what taxes we will finance this whole enterprise and whom we will "milk". Inflation acceleration and changes in the market structure are possible due to the introduction of taxes

          At the current level of taxes, we have the opportunity to start building the above-mentioned fleet. And generally speaking, with a somewhat adequate economic policy, we could count on an increase in the budget of the RF Ministry of Defense
          1. Knell wardenheart
            Knell wardenheart April 2 2021 14: 49
            +2
            And generally speaking, with a somewhat adequate economic policy, we could count on an increase in the budget of the RF Ministry of Defense

            Here I will inevitably agree - our potential has not been revealed. However, I do not see a trend towards this, rather the opposite.
  • Mooh
    Mooh April 2 2021 14: 22
    +2
    Andrei Nikolaevich, as usual, is beautiful in all respects. I took and simplified the most difficult problem to school arithmetic. And hell, you’ll argue! We would have such people in the government, but more, more. You look and order will appear in the country.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      April 2 2021 14: 33
      +2
      Thank you! hi
      Quote: MooH
      Took and simplified the most difficult problem to school arithmetic

      One of the main signs of professionalism is to explain complex things in simple and understandable words :)))
  • AML
    AML April 2 2021 15: 49
    0
    Quote: Bez 310
    The man took the trouble to convince us that money,
    We have knowledge and skills for building a fleet.
    But there is no fleet, and there will not be in the foreseeable future.
    Paradox? No, it's just that life is like this ...


    There is no paradox. It is necessary to solve problems as they become available. Well, take and build 2-3 aircraft carriers and what to do with them? Keep in the bays? For the aircraft carrier, you need to create infrastructure, support ships, logistics, in the end, build barracks where the crews are located. You know, when I was small, from time to time I asked my father, but let's make a car, I drew on a piece of paper here how it should look. Here in this article, the author posted his "leaf"
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      April 3 2021 11: 06
      0
      Quote: AML
      Well, take and build 2-3 aircraft carriers and what to do with them? Keep in the bays?

      Have you read the article at all? Or, as usual, "I have not read, but I condemn"?
  • AML
    AML April 2 2021 15: 58
    -2
    Quote: Lannan Shi

    The problem is that the Navy is unnecessary. You can't make much of it. But the Olympics and world championships ... This is just a gold mine. Remind me of the "Olympic gas pipeline"? Cost per running meter, 3-5 times more expensive than foreign counterparts?


    Well, remind, together and giggle at human stupidity. It is, you know, when you just drink and eat in your head, then everything is simple. To bury a running meter and a running meter with infrastructure are two different things.

    Quote: Lannan Shi

    The problem is that our approaches are radically different. In China, billionaires are a feeding trough for the state. Here ... The state is a feeding trough for billionaires. That is why China pawns ships in batches, and we grind them out by the piece. sad


    The problem is not in the toilet, but in the heads. Have you ever been to China? I'm more than sure not, otherwise you wouldn't be carrying this garbage.
  • yehat2
    yehat2 April 2 2021 16: 54
    -3
    the amount of work is impressive, but the knowledge of economics is unfortunately disappointing. Feel free to multiply the items on the aircraft carrier by 3. Too special product.

    Further. Andrey did not fully take into account a number of aspects that strongly affect the cost - the diversification of suppliers and their reliability, the serial production, reserves of energy for rest and other exceptions and a number of other things, such as the maintenance of infrastructure and spare capacities of various types. His entire estimate should be very roughly multiplied by 2 at least. Add to this the inefficiency of budget spending (for example, they cannot immediately pay for the construction of 4 ships) and you can also add costs for the current system of the economy and the state (now about + 300% of the price) As a result, the potentially tailored budget of needs is cut by about 6-8 times the most rosy estimates.

    To be closer to reality, we need to at least ensure timely updating of equipment, preferably long-run production. This alone will seriously improve the position of the army and navy. The second most important point is that we have a disgusting range of suppliers. Both in quality and technology, and in differences. This is completely insufficient for the normal supply of the army. The United States, by the way, also has more problems in this area.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      April 2 2021 18: 53
      +3
      Quote: yehat2
      Feel free to multiply the item on the aircraft carrier by 3 more.

      Why would that be?
      Quote: yehat2
      Further. Andrey did not fully take into account a number of aspects that strongly affect the cost - the diversification of suppliers and their reliability, the serial production, reserves of energy for rest and other exceptions and a number of other things, such as the maintenance of infrastructure and spare capacities of various types. His entire estimate should be very roughly multiplied by 2 at least.

      Sorry, but without confirmation at least something - this is nonsense, from the word "complete". All of the above will play in the reduction of the cost of production, and not in its rise in price. It is the seriality and regularity of deliveries that reduce the cost, and they are inevitable with a systematic approach to construction.
      1. Alexander Vorontsov
        Alexander Vorontsov April 3 2021 16: 59
        0
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        All of the above will play in the reduction of the cost of production, and not in its rise in price. It is the seriality and regularity of deliveries that reduce the cost, and they are inevitable with a systematic approach to construction.

        In ordinary cases for our defense industry, and any large project, when the schedules "floated" and people have to take people to an additional amount of work for double wages (still officially) - how will this play to reduce the cost?
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          April 3 2021 17: 07
          0
          Quote: Alexander Vorontsov
          In ordinary cases for our defense industry, and any large project, when the schedules "floated" and people have to take people to an additional amount of work for double wages (still officially) - how will this play to reduce the cost?

          People are brought out to double when it is necessary to close a local hole. And if we are talking about a stable increase in production (seriality and regularity!), Then this is solved by other methods, for example, switching to a two-shift mode of operation, or de-mothballing of industrial capacities and hiring new employees, etc.
          1. Alexander Vorontsov
            Alexander Vorontsov April 3 2021 17: 48
            -1
            People get doubled when it is necessary to close a local hole.

            So you were asked about it. How does this reduce the cost of production?
            Or maybe you think that everything happens without overlapping?
            1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              April 3 2021 17: 55
              0
              Quote: Alexander Vorontsov
              So you were asked about it.

              So I answered about it.
              Quote: Alexander Vorontsov
              Or maybe you think that everything happens without overlapping?

              There are always overlays. But with serial and regular production, there are fewer of them than with small-scale and irregular. What's incomprehensible here?
              1. Alexander Vorontsov
                Alexander Vorontsov April 3 2021 17: 59
                -1
                So I answered about it.

                No. You answered about
                People are brought out to double when it is necessary to close a local hole. And if we are talking about a stable increase in production (seriality and regularity!) Then

                Answer about the "local hole".
                There are always overlays.

                Vooot. Here's about them answer. How does going out to double pay reduce the cost?
                1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                  April 3 2021 18: 05
                  0
                  Quote: Alexander Vorontsov
                  Vooot. Here's about them answer. How does going out to double pay reduce the cost?

                  He does not decrease it, but increases it. AND?
                  Quote: Alexander Vorontsov
                  Answer about the "local hole".

                  Local holes arise when there is a shortage either in equipment (a bottleneck for the required volume of production) or a shortage of labor resources (there are not enough workers to perform), or perhaps both.
                  So, when serial production is regularly produced, such holes are quite simply reduced to minimum values. They mainly arise precisely with irregular production, when suddenly there is a need to sharply but for a short time increase the amount of the enterprise's products.
                  That is why, if a certain enterprise builds a corvette, then, when it is built, it does not receive a state order for 3 years, and then it will be necessary to build a corvette again, then there will be a lot of outputs for double payment. And if the enterprise produces corvettes constantly, then emergency exits and double overpayments will be minimized.
                  1. Alexander Vorontsov
                    Alexander Vorontsov April 3 2021 18: 23
                    0
                    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                    He does not decrease it, but increases it. AND?

                    What and? What the comrade told you above, and you answered that, on the contrary, it would make it cheaper.
                    Rises in price.

                    Local holes arise when there is a shortage either in equipment (a bottleneck for the required volume of production) or a shortage of labor resources (there are not enough workers to perform), or perhaps both.

                    For ship A, you need to supply item B.
                    The period for testing product B before delivery of the airspace is measured in weeks.

                    During the installation process, the product breaks down (case from practice).
                    Or quality control at the factory itself reveals a fatal defect. The act of culling and tyutu. (also happens)

                    The stage cannot be completed without installing this item on the ship.
                    At the stages, the deadlines and the order of advance payment are tied, i.e. cash receipts.
                    Let me remind you that this is a defense order and enterprises cannot easily take loans to the left and to the right in order to cover the arising interruptions, as it would be easy to do in any other sector of the economy.

                    And there is only one way out - the customer begins frantically to rivet the next item B while finding himself in a situation where he lags behind by 1 item.

                    All processes are strictly regulated by the schedules of acceptance and delivery and advance payment of stages.


                    All of the above will play in the reduction of the cost of production, and not in its rise in price.

                    By the way, from what he listed - the division of production between 2 contractors, in your opinion, will also not lead to a rise in price? When, instead of 1 series, 2 is launched in 2 times less, is it also cheaper?
                    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                      April 3 2021 19: 09
                      +1
                      Quote: Alexander Vorontsov
                      What and? What the comrade told you above, and you answered that, on the contrary, it would make it cheaper.
                      Rises in price.

                      Sorry, have you ever worked in production at all?
                      How else to explain to you that serial and regular production REDUCES the number of such processing?
                      Quote: Alexander Vorontsov
                      All processes are strictly regulated by the schedules of acceptance and delivery and advance payment of stages.

                      In this whole mind-boggling picture, you missed only one nuance - with regular and serial production, the number of such disruptions decreases, rather than increases.
                      Quote: Alexander Vorontsov
                      The stage cannot be completed without installing this item on the ship.
                      At the stages, the deadlines and the order of advance payment are tied, i.e. cash receipts.
                      Let me remind you that this is a defense order and enterprises cannot easily take loans to the left and to the right in order to cover the arising interruptions, as it would be easy to do in any other sector of the economy.

                      I take, I don't see any problems
                      Quote: Alexander Vorontsov
                      By the way, from what he listed - the division of production between 2 contractors, in your opinion, will also not lead to a rise in price? When, instead of 1 series, 2 is launched in 2 times less, is it also cheaper?

                      WHAT FOR? You yourself come up with some completely unnecessary difficulties.
                      1. Alexander Vorontsov
                        Alexander Vorontsov April 3 2021 19: 59
                        -1
                        I take, I don't see any problems

                        What do you take? Loans on behalf of a company operating under Federal Law 275?

                        Sorry, have you ever worked in production at all?
                        How else to explain to you that serial and regular production REDUCES the number of such processing?

                        And I don’t know why you’re writing about it, they just wrote you a list of things that you didn’t take into account and which could increase the cost.
                        Regardless of whether it is serial production or not, it will only affect the scale of the problem and not to the same extent as you think.
                      2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                        April 3 2021 20: 06
                        +1
                        Quote: Alexander Vorontsov
                        What do you take? Loans on behalf of a company operating under Federal Law 275?

                        Yes. I took it at two enterprises.
                        Quote: Alexander Vorontsov
                        And I don’t know why you’re writing about it, they just wrote you a list of things that you didn’t take into account and which could increase the cost.

                        All this is taken into account, and will not increase the cost from the current
                      3. Alexander Vorontsov
                        Alexander Vorontsov April 3 2021 20: 13
                        0
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        All this is taken into account, and will not increase the cost from the current

                        Yes, it was not taken into account anywhere.
                        You didn't even have an understanding of what it was about.

                        Listen, tell me, since you took out a loan without any problems at 2 defense enterprises, and what prices are discussed at 2 stages of price negotiation, prescribed in the contract or DS, and how do they differ and why?
                      4. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                        April 3 2021 20: 39
                        +1
                        Quote: Alexander Vorontsov
                        Yes, it was not taken into account anywhere.
                        You didn't even have an understanding of what it was about

                        I - it was, I just come across this on a regular basis. But you do not have an understanding of what the processing depends on.
                        Quote: Alexander Vorontsov
                        Listen, tell me, since you took out a loan without any problems at 2 defense enterprises, and what prices are discussed at 2 stages of price negotiation, prescribed in the contract or DS, and how do they differ and why?

                        First, an approximate price is set, which is then converted to a fixed price.
                        By the way, not always, in some cases a fixed price is set immediately
                      5. Alexander Vorontsov
                        Alexander Vorontsov April 3 2021 20: 52
                        0
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        First, an approximate price is set, which is then converted to a fixed price.

                        And it doesn't bother you that, for example, people first counted one thing, having already tons of documentation, design, economic. And then at the finish line they regularly fall out of the bounds of what they counted.

                        And you, in fact, made a cursory calculation without having any design documents (for the same aircraft carrier) and type - there will be no rise in price.

                        And with an aircraft carrier, I do not understand at all how it can be considered.
                        You can call any one. And then prove that not? The Russell Kettle principle works ...
                        Everyone is free to name those numbers that "seem to him" the closest, but no one can prove anything.

                        But one thing is for sure - the project is voluminous and complex as from the point of view. technical and from the point of view of cooperation of enterprises. And this, as you understand, already INCREASES the possibility of overlays.
                        As a result, the possibility of a "miss" with the price increases greatly - 1 unsuccessful decision and the difference can be noticeable.
                      6. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                        April 3 2021 21: 52
                        +2
                        Quote: Alexander Vorontsov
                        And it doesn't bother you that, for example, people first counted one thing, having already tons of documentation, design, economic. And then at the finish line they regularly fall out of the bounds of what they counted.

                        Did you count yourself? I thought. Approximate is usually set
                        a) For new products
                        b) For products for which there is no data from co-contractors at the time of approval of the calculations. That is, I am going to buy a certain unit from a certain plant N, and the price for it has not been calculated and has not been agreed upon by its military representation. So an approximate "Wishlist" is put
                        Quote: Alexander Vorontsov
                        And you, in fact, made a cursory calculation without having any design documents (for the same aircraft carrier) and type - there will be no rise in price.

                        I did not make calculations at all, but estimated the cost from an analogue.
                      7. Alexander Vorontsov
                        Alexander Vorontsov April 4 2021 08: 45
                        0
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        Did you count yourself? I thought. Approximate is usually set
                        a) For new products

                        A. I didn't know. It all changes you are right.
                        Sorry, I just thought the aircraft carrier was a new product for us ...
                        I just didn’t know that over the past 10 years we had already launched 3 of them.
                        So yes you are correct in your reasoning.

                        b) For products for which there is no data from co-contractors at the time of approval of the calculations.

                        And we have no data at all.
                        Even technical ones.

                        I did not make calculations at all, but estimated the cost from an analogue.

                        I just spoke in a more respectful tone about your work.
                        And so you are right - you did not make a calculation at all.
                        But at the same time you manage to hold a discussion about the impossibility of rising prices and "everything is taken into account.
                        Paradox.
                        By the way, the French have extensive experience in building ships. Nuclear power is not bad. The USA drove catapults to them (the project, they did it themselves). And then they fell out of the budget so much that they canceled the 2nd aircraft carrier.
                        Well, you are "not making a calculation."

                        You are shown the reasons why the project budget "may" increase (and in practice it happens) - you write something "everything is taken into account".
                        Well taken into account so taken into account. Okay.
                      8. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                        April 4 2021 11: 40
                        +1
                        Quote: Alexander Vorontsov
                        And so you are right - you did not make a calculation at all.
                        But at the same time you manage to hold a discussion about the impossibility of rising prices and "everything is taken into account.
                        Paradox.

                        Tell me, if I named the price of 100 trillion rubles for an aircraft carrier, would you even then say that something was not taken into account? :))))
                        Quote: Alexander Vorontsov
                        By the way, the French have extensive experience in building ships. Nuclear power is not bad. The USA drove catapults to them (the project, they did it themselves). And then they fell out of the budget so much that they canceled the 2nd aircraft carrier.

                        They fell out of the budget by as much as 20%, while their aircraft carrier cost almost as much as half of the Nimitz, which by the beginning of the 2000s were already striving for $ 6 billion. In general, I am guided by Ford in pricing, we will build a small one, like a Frenchman , will come out much cheaper.
                        Quote: Alexander Vorontsov
                        You are shown the reasons why the project budget "may" increase (and in practice it happens) - you write something "everything is taken into account".

                        And I explain that the analog method of assessment was used, and with a large margin.
                      9. Alexander Vorontsov
                        Alexander Vorontsov April 4 2021 15: 33
                        0
                        By the way, but regarding this
                        Of course, the costs of repairs, the creation of infrastructure, R&D, but about them - a little later.

                        I'm interested in repairs. Not considered in the article?
                      10. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                        April 4 2021 15: 59
                        +1
                        Quote: Alexander Vorontsov
                        I'm interested in repairs. Not considered in the article?

                        It seems that I went overboard on purpose, I posted the infographics. Alexander, is it really that even such a presentation of information is too complicated for a modern reader?
                        The budget of the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation in terms of GPV for 2019, SEPARATELY from the costs of purchasing weapons and military equipment, provides for R&D for 196 billion and repairs for 122 billion. Give them a third of this to the fleet
                      11. Alexander Vorontsov
                        Alexander Vorontsov April 4 2021 16: 05
                        0
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        Quote: Alexander Vorontsov
                        I'm interested in repairs. Not considered in the article?

                        It seems that I went overboard on purpose, I posted the infographics. Alexander, is it really that even such a presentation of information is too complicated for a modern reader?
                        The budget of the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation in terms of GPV for 2019, SEPARATELY from the costs of purchasing weapons and military equipment, provides for R&D for 196 billion and repairs for 122 billion. Give them a third of this to the fleet

                        By "consider the issue" I mean the issue of servicing the fleet you have considered. Out of brackets - approx.
  • yehat2
    yehat2 April 2 2021 19: 27
    -1
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    Why would that be?

    1.there is no adequate shipyard and its surroundings to make it work efficiently
    2. There is no whole layer of design solutions and developments - Kuznetsov showed this. If you do not run into a springboard half-aircraft carrier, you need a very different filling.
    3. Experimental base for testing avik filling.
    4. Insufficient capacity of the economy and industry, which will literally force us to buy imports, rent, etc.
    5. There is no port for the aircraft carrier, as such. It does not exist at all, but it is necessary to build and preferably not one.
    I think this is enough, but the list of price increases is far from complete.
    1. Ivanchester
      Ivanchester April 2 2021 23: 28
      0
      Sorry to interfere with your discussion, but I would like to clarify.
      Andrey has pledged expenses for 2 AB in the amount of about 600 billion rubles.
      You, as I understand it, suggested adding another 1.2 trillion rubles.
      Which of what you have listed above may be worth such a cosmic cost, taking into account, for example, the fact that as of the end of 2019, all non-current assets of the United Shipbuilding Corporation (with all its shipyards, related enterprises, berths, investments in R&D etc.) were less than 300 billion rubles?
      1. yehat2
        yehat2 April 3 2021 12: 10
        0
        I think I still greatly underestimated
        but I have another question - why such costs for 1-2 aircraft carriers ???
        all this will pay off if we, like the United States, build aircraft carriers all the time.
        with this money, you can create a whole bunch of other, more popular weapons.
        Personally, it seems to me that an aircraft carrier can appear now on sane conditions only in cooperation with China or at least with South Korea. It is too expensive for us to build alone.
        1. Ivanchester
          Ivanchester April 3 2021 13: 58
          0
          Quote: yehat2
          I think I still greatly underestimated
          but I have another question - why such costs for 1-2 aircraft carriers ???

          So what exactly "such" costs are we talking about? If you somehow evaluate and justify them, then it will be possible to speak in detail, but for now it is more like fortune telling on coffee grounds.
          In my humble opinion, the development of the AB project (based on Ulyanovsk), the finishing of the catapult and the AWACS deck aircraft, as well as the construction of several berths will hardly pull 10% of the amount announced by you.
          1. yehat2
            yehat2 April 3 2021 19: 56
            0
            Quote: Ivanchester
            somehow evaluate and justify

            I already rated + - rough
            and it's strange to expect a detailed estimate from me
            Submit some maritime institute for a year and I will be able to describe something concrete to you.
            1. Ivanchester
              Ivanchester April 3 2021 20: 53
              0
              Quote: yehat2
              I already rated + - rough

              Any assessment must be justified: either through comparison with analogues, the cost of which is known, or through direct calculation of the main components.
              So please explain what is the basis of your assessment? Why should the costs be multiplied by 3 and not by 10, for example?
              1. yehat2
                yehat2 April 4 2021 01: 19
                +1
                I have been working in industry for many years and I know how it works.
                In addition, I have 2 economic education, as well as some knowledge in metallurgy and metal processing in shipbuilding. This is the foundation. It will take too much time to describe the whole complex of bases in detail, and in part it is only an excuse to be lousy.
                The counting technique from the article is convenient, but completely out of touch with reality.
                It is more or less true only where continuous production has already been established.
                If you are determined not to agree, well, compare the prices of the mistrals and the analogue that they are going to build with us. And the production time. I think then you will at least understand that I have reasons.
      2. Alexander Vorontsov
        Alexander Vorontsov April 3 2021 17: 53
        0
        Quote: Ivanchester
        Which of what you have listed above may be worth such a cosmic cost, taking into account, for example, the fact that as of the end of 2019, all non-current assets of the United Shipbuilding Corporation (with all its shipyards, related enterprises, berths, investments in R&D etc.) were less than 300 billion rubles?

        Do you understand what you mean by non-current assets? How do they relate to the construction of an aircraft carrier? They can be anything at all. This will not affect the price of the aircraft carrier.


        Which of what you have listed above can cost such a cosmic cost,

        Labor compensation, logistics costs.
        Not so much, but they can add significantly.
        1. Ivanchester
          Ivanchester April 3 2021 21: 01
          0
          Quote: Alexander Vorontsov
          Do you understand what you mean by non-current assets?

          Quite. I am a certified economist.

          Quote: Alexander Vorontsov
          How do they relate to the construction of an aircraft carrier?


          My opponent and I discussed the cost of additional shipbuilding capacity needed to create AB. I pointed out that everything that the USC now possesses is much cheaper than the amounts he is talking about.

          Quote: Alexander Vorontsov
          Labor compensation, logistics costs

          These are fairly obvious cost items and, of course, they are included in the author's estimate. After all, the cost of the PLA through which he received it includes both those and other expenses.
    2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      April 3 2021 11: 04
      0
      Quote: yehat2
      1.there is no adequate shipyard and its surroundings to make it work efficiently

      Sevmash, shop 55
      Quote: yehat2
      2. There is no whole layer of design solutions and developments - Kuznetsov showed this.

      Which ones? :))))
      Quote: yehat2
      3. Experimental base for testing avik filling.

      Which one? How did Thread not please?
      Quote: yehat2
      Insufficient capacity of the economy and industry, which will literally force us to buy imports, rent, etc.

      What is it? What is not enough for us? Can't we release metal? Can't handle three lifts? Specify, please, without general words
      Quote: yehat2
      5. There is no port for an aircraft carrier, as such

      He doesn't need him for nothing. We need an infrastructure in the existing naval base, which would provide it with the supply of steam, electricity, water, etc. This is at most a few billion rubles.
      1. yehat2
        yehat2 April 3 2021 12: 25
        0
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        Which ones? :))))

        for example, we do not have a catapult
        as it turned out, we do not have a reliable braking system either
        no adequate landing system
        there is no adequate fire extinguishing system and much more.
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        Sevmash, shop 55

        firstly, this workshop is occupied by submarines, and for years to come
        secondly, for a heavy aircraft carrier, it is completely insufficient
        and thirdly, were you interested in the cost of work there?
        if built in the Krasnodar Territory and covered with gilding, it will be much cheaper.
        And the last thing. Unlike the submarine, the avik should go many times more installation.
        Are there such facilities and logistics? No, no!
        Is checking the operation of an aircraft carrier in the northern latitudes a good solution? I do not think so.
        The aircraft carrier simply needs to be built in much warmer latitudes, if we do not want to receive
        another proud long-term construction.
        And lastly, it is worth starting to build such ships modularly.
        Where do we have a lot of shipyards?

        Andrey, stop holding on to your ideas, which are unsuccessful.
        Well, stubbornness looks ridiculous. Are you looking for a rational solution to the issue? So keep looking, and not trying to assert yourself by proving that the first idea is the most correct.
        The monetary method of estimating production volumes is suitable only for the nomenclature that is either well mastered or can be easily mastered. An aircraft carrier is a hell of a production facility. Not because it's super complicated. But because our industry is completely unprepared.
        Recently there was one of your articles on the same topic - there was an estimate of the metal consumption of the production of 1 aircraft carrier. So, even in St. Petersburg with a highly developed transport infrastructure, providing construction has turned out to be an extremely difficult task and very expensive. And at the northern shipyard it will be just the finish line. We do not have a goal to build aviks at any cost. Our goal is different - to build so that the hernia does not come out.
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          April 3 2021 13: 45
          +2
          Quote: yehat2
          for example, we do not have a catapult

          No. But there are some groundwork for it. And there is a place for testing (THREAD) and - already with a steam catapult
          Quote: yehat2
          as it turned out, we do not have a reliable braking system either

          Yes, if you are talking about an air arrestor. Aircraft from Kuznetsov fly constantly, and it is not worth declaring it incapacitated on the basis of problems with a specific batch of cables
          Quote: yehat2
          no adequate landing system

          All my life there was, now they are putting on a new, improved one, but you still do not have it. Indians from Vikra fly, apparently without sitting down? :)
          Quote: yehat2
          no adequate fire extinguishing system

          Where did you go? Everything is.
          Quote: yehat2
          firstly, this workshop is occupied by submarines, and for years to come

          By 2028, it will be free for sure, even if 2 more boreas are laid
          Quote: yehat2
          secondly, for a heavy aircraft carrier, it is completely insufficient

          More than enough, "Ulyanovsk" fits there in size
          Quote: yehat2
          and thirdly, were you interested in the cost of work there?

          I was interested - they are building nuclear submarines :)))))
          Quote: yehat2
          if built in the Krasnodar Territory and covered with gilding, it will be much cheaper.

          You are more than completely wrong.
          Quote: yehat2
          And the last thing. Unlike the submarine, the avik should go many times more installation.
          Are there such facilities and logistics? No, no!

          There is. In workshop No. 55, 4 SSBNs with an aggregate displacement of almost 59 thousand are being built at the same time. The difference with an aircraft carrier of 70 - 75 thousand tons is insignificant
          Quote: yehat2
          Is checking the operation of an aircraft carrier in northern latitudes a good solution?

          Successful. No problem.
          Quote: yehat2
          And lastly, it is worth starting to build such ships modularly.

          It is possible, but quite realistic, to build on the existing facilities. It is necessary to expand the filling pool there, yes, but this is a feasible job, provided for by the design of the plant. This modernization was originally included in the project.
          Quote: yehat2
          Andrey, stop holding on to your ideas, which are unsuccessful.

          You see, unlike you, I take the idea into service, having studied it properly. You didn’t bother to do this, your primary belief is that it is impossible to build AV at Sevmash, and you invent an argument for this without studying the issue.
          By the way, the head of the USC is on my side - he has repeatedly said that Sevmash will build an aircraft carrier if there is an order
          Quote: yehat2
          But because our industry is completely unprepared.

          Ready
          Quote: yehat2
          Recently there was one of your articles on the same topic - there was an estimate of the metal consumption of the production of 1 aircraft carrier.

          There was no such article. And an aircraft carrier needs a maximum of 60 thousand tons of metal. This is a minuscule amount.
          Quote: yehat2
          So, even in St. Petersburg with a highly developed transport infrastructure, it turned out to be an extremely difficult task and very expensive to ensure construction. And at the northern shipyard it will be just the finish line.

          I do not know where you read this, but this is completely untrue. Sevmash is currently building 11-12 nuclear submarines at the same time, whose total weight is much larger than an aircraft carrier, and does not experience any problems with this. And the Borey series by the end of the 20s will be completed, and the mass of workers and the power of the 55th will be unloaded
  • Peaceful SEO
    Peaceful SEO April 2 2021 21: 05
    0
    The most important thing is not for the construction of the fleet and not only the fleet .. Lavrenty Palych, we do not have enough tin.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      April 3 2021 17: 08
      +1
      Quote: Peaceful SEO
      Lawrence Palych, we do not have enough tin.

      I cannot but agree :)))))
  • Usher
    Usher April 2 2021 22: 15
    -5
    The liberds piled up.
  • Angry Alt-Right
    Angry Alt-Right April 3 2021 00: 19
    0
    So, unfortunately, it is completely unclear whether the price for "Ash", "Borei", Su-35, etc. was indicated in open sources. with or without VAT.

    Oh, the author, made fun! laughing
    You would also ask to find out whether pension contributions of employees of enterprises are included in this case ...
    It's a murky business, you know. So you can face the next "secret budget item".
  • FRoman1984
    FRoman1984 April 3 2021 07: 55
    -1
    I didn't quite understand just at which shipyard the author was going to build 2 aircraft carriers? There is none. And the escort in the form of destroyers (8 units)? So after all, even the project does not yet exist, there is no GEM. With a creak we give out the power plant at 22350, one piece at a time. The destroyer will need to make it more powerful, since the displacement will increase.
    Corvettes 20380 are not suitable for the role of serious PLO ships. Corvettes 20380/20385 are a waste of money. As well as "frigates" 11356.
    As for boats, it is necessary to develop the 885M series and not spend money on the design and construction of a new series of nuclear torpedo boats. Best of all is to upgrade all of the current 971 boats. More than enough for the role of hunters.
    The deck aviation of the new aircraft carriers is not even on paper. The age of the su-33 and the mig-29k is leaving, we need a new specialized carrier-based aircraft (like the f-18). He's gone. Yak-44 - it is not. There is no modern PLA aircraft, and there is no modern fleet reconnaissance aircraft either.
    Author, it's not just about money. The retirement age will be raised again, and the money will be found. Not the first time. The question is - who will build and develop all this and where? You can see how long and with big problems and gigantic delays it takes to build boats 885 (which was designed back in the Soviet Union), il-76-90a aircraft, frigates 22350, and the su-57 fighter. There are no people, from a simple fitter - an assembler to a general designer. Only managers a la Serdyukov to the fig, parasitizing on the industry.
    Take off the pink glasses.
    Our reality is to build a lot of workhorses - frigate 22350, invest in Ash and Borei, modernize 971 boats, modernize Orlans (don't cut Lazarev), modernize 1135 as PLO ships. And start working on the atomic Leader, to replace the Eagles.
    No aircraft carrier needed. This is a fairy tale, a miracle of miracles.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      April 3 2021 11: 00
      -1
      Quote: FRoman1984
      I didn't quite understand just at which shipyard the author was going to build 2 aircraft carriers? There is none.

      Sevmash, shop 55 Why isn't it nice to you?
      Quote: FRoman1984
      And the escort in the form of destroyers (8 units)? So after all, even the project does not yet exist, there is no GEM

      project 22350M
      Quote: FRoman1984
      With a creak we give out the power plant at 22350, one piece at a time.

      Until they learned how to mass-produce engines for them - yes, but it's a matter of time
      Quote: FRoman1984
      Corvettes 20380 are not suitable for the role of serious PLO ships.

      So what? I don’t have enough money for the PLO frigate, in your opinion?
      Quote: FRoman1984
      As for boats, it is necessary to develop the 885M series and not spend money on the design and construction of a new series of nuclear torpedo boats.

      Nonsense, from the word "complete". These are expensive mastodons who will never fit into the role of the main nuclear submarine.
      Quote: FRoman1984
      Best of all is to upgrade all of the current 971 boats. More than enough for the role of hunters.

      Even more nonsense - they could work with the Improved Moose, even the most recent versions. But not with the Virginias.
      Quote: FRoman1984
      The deck aviation of the new aircraft carriers is not even on paper.

      Su-57 can be easily upgraded to a deck version
      Quote: FRoman1984
      Yak-44 - it is not.

      And desperately needed not only the Navy, but also the Aerospace Forces
      Quote: FRoman1984
      The question is - who will build and develop all this and where? You will see how long and with big problems and with gigantic delays boats 885 are being built (which was designed back in the Soviet Union)

      During the union, the 885 was designed, and in the 885M series, this is a completely different ship, and it was designed in the Russian Federation.
      Quote: FRoman1984
      Il-76-90a aircraft, 22350 frigates, Su-57 fighter. There are no people, from a simple fitter - assembler to a general designer

      Do you seriously think that the "locksmiths are to blame for the problems of the same Poliment-Redoubt? :)))) I would not call the Su-57 problematic at all. You just need to understand that today is not 1933, and the main fighter cannot be created in a year.
      Quote: FRoman1984
      start working on the atomic Leader,

      This is definitely sabotage
      1. FRoman1984
        FRoman1984 April 3 2021 21: 04
        -1
        Was an aircraft carrier ever built in Workshop 55, if so, what displacement? Modernization of existing ships does not count. These are two different things. Do people have experience building aircraft carriers from scratch?
        The shipyard in Nikolaev remained.

        Project 22350M will have the same power plant? Nonsense. It will be necessary to make a new one, as the displacement will increase.

        885 was designed under the Union and was already being finalized in Russia. This is the same ship, the concept. Just because they took the torpedo tubes aboard and redesigned the compartments, that doesn't mean it's a new boat.

        Whose estimate is the high cost of the boat? Yours? "Expensive", "cheap", "acceptable" - epithets. It is necessary to look at the functionality and whether there is an analogue "cheaper". Do you think that it will be cheaper to design and build a new torpedo boat (as you suggested) from scratch? Nonsense.

        The Su-57 is a heavy fighter that will also take off like the Su-33 with half its fuel and payload. Therefore, the word "easy" does not make sense, it is a dead end idea.
        We need a new plane.

        The Yak-44 is primarily needed, of course, by the Navy, the Aerospace Forces will have at least something in the person of the A-100.

        The permanent crisis in the industry is to blame for the problems of Polyment-Redoubt. Which has not gone anywhere since the collapse of the Union. This is what I meant about the lack of personnel.

        Regarding sabotage - let's build on the decision of the Ministry of Defense, how they see the destroyer of the future.

        In terms of engines, if they can barely cope with one GTE for 22350 per year, how will they provide 22350M, your "PLO frigates"?
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          April 3 2021 21: 49
          +1
          Quote: FRoman1984
          Was an aircraft carrier ever built in Workshop 55, if so, what displacement?

          It was originally created with an eye on the creation of large warships. The same as shop # 50 (Sevmash's second shop) was built for battleships of project 23
          Quote: FRoman1984
          Do people have experience building aircraft carriers from scratch?

          No, and that's not a problem. Vikramaditya done
          Quote: FRoman1984
          885 was designed under the Union and was already being finalized in Russia. This is the same ship, the concept. Just because they took the torpedo tubes aboard and redesigned the compartments, that doesn't mean it's a new boat.

          There are a number of fundamental differences, including equipment and energy.
          Quote: FRoman1984
          Whose estimate is the high cost of the boat? Yours? "Expensive", "cheap", "acceptable" - epithets. It is necessary to look at the functionality and whether there is an analogue "cheaper".

          All this is and is written about it in the articles. It's not my fault if you haven't read it
          Quote: FRoman1984
          The Su-57 is a heavy fighter that will also take off like the Su-33 with half its fuel and payload. Therefore, the word "easy" does not make sense, it is a dead end idea.

          Su-33 takes off with a limited load ONLY from the first two positions. From the third, it can take off at full weight. This time. Second. You cannot even realize that takeoff will depend on the thrust-to-weight ratio of the aircraft, and the Su-57 has a big gain here.
          Quote: FRoman1984
          The Yak-44 is primarily needed, of course, by the Navy, the Aerospace Forces will have at least something in the person of the A-100.

          Taking into account how many people want to get on this plane - just "something"
          Quote: FRoman1984
          In terms of engines, if they can barely cope with one GTE for 22350 per year, how will they provide 22350M, your "PLO frigates"?

          They NOW do this one a year, and before that they did not do it at all. The issue can be increased. I have no PLO frigates
          1. FRoman1984
            FRoman1984 April 3 2021 22: 47
            +1
            You yourself wrote that you laid the PLO on the frigate according to the text above. Take a look. Just why is he, if there will be (someday, we will dream) a destroyer and 22350 is the current one.

            Have you ever seen a Su-33 take off from "third" position? At least one video. Well, maybe only on trials. But even from the third position, it will not take off fully loaded. The Su-27 was adapted for an aircraft carrier, it was not created for it. As well as su-57. These are heavy vehicles, and the aircraft carrier does not need them at all.

            You are mistaken about Sevmash's capabilities. And by the way, Vikramaditya (you can say it) is an example of this. The modernization project went beyond budget and every conceivable time frame.
            Modernization and construction are not the same thing.

            Well, and most importantly - look at what ships we are building, in what time frame and what problems with them.
            Look at the most difficult project 885M, launched in 2017 and still not delivered. Of the surface ships, 22350 is the only worthy ship designed and built in modern Russia, how long and difficult it has been doing. Was Gorshkov released in 2006?
            There is no point in talking about other trash in the face of 20380/20385/20386, "brawlers", 11356 - they are already outdated, without serious air defense or anti-aircraft defense, they are suitable for fighting with inflatable boats of Ukraine, no more.
            Now imagine the aircraft carrier project? Under him and for him there is no h ... ra, from the word at all.
            What I mean is that we need to first assess the possibilities, and then plan the budget.
            1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              April 4 2021 00: 18
              +1
              Quote: FRoman1984
              You yourself wrote that you laid the PLO on the frigate according to the text above.

              On the PLO corvette, as stated in the article
              Quote: FRoman1984
              Have you ever seen a Su-33 take off from "third" position? At least one video.

              Films taken during the combat service of the aircraft carrier in 1995-1996 in the Mediterranean Sea demonstrate a similar takeoff twice https://topwar.ru/143482-takr-kuznecov-sravnenie-s-avianoscami-nato-ch2.html
              Quote: FRoman1984
              But even from the third position, it will not take off fully loaded.

              I'll tell you a secret - he took off from the first two positions fully loaded. But it was recognized that it was too dangerous even for such aces as carrier-based aircraft pilots.
              Quote: FRoman1984
              The Su-27 was adapted for an aircraft carrier, it was not created for it. As well as su-57. These are heavy vehicles, and the aircraft carrier does not need them at all.

              Oh yes :))) Su-33 max takeoff weight of 33 tons is not suitable for an aircraft carrier. And Tomcat in 33 tons is suitable
              Quote: FRoman1984
              And by the way, Vikramaditya (you can say it) is an example of this. The modernization project went beyond budget and every conceivable time frame.

              He did not go anywhere, and this is common knowledge. Simply put, we signed a contract before full troubleshooting of the mechanisms, were in a hurry to conclude a contract, and when they did it, it became clear that repairs were required much more (both in terms of volume, and in terms of time and cost) than "by eye" was supposed to.
              Quote: FRoman1984
              Well, and most importantly - look at what ships we are building, in what time frame and what problems with them.

              I've been watching for many years.
              Quote: FRoman1984
              Look at the most difficult project 885M, launched in 2017 and still not delivered.

              And so what? the British Estute was launched in 2007, and handed over to the fleet in 2010. And the British did not have any restructuring.
              Quote: FRoman1984
              There is no point in talking about other trash in the face of 20380/20385/20386, "brawlers", 11356 - they are already outdated

              ??? And why did 20380 not please you?
              Quote: FRoman1984
              Now imagine the aircraft carrier project? Under him and for him there is no h ... ra, from the word at all.

              Well, yes ... except for reactors, special deck coverings, aerofinishers, take-off / landing systems, and so on and so on ...
              In fact, there is everything except catapults
              1. Nemchinov Vl
                Nemchinov Vl April 5 2021 21: 31
                0
                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                And why did 20380 not please you?
                but interesting: HOW CAN HE please the navy, with its weapons and price (!) belay , and construction for 5-6 years with all this (with VI 2200 t.) ??? How will PLO / OVR be carried out (what exactly?) ...
                No, of course there is no place for a real one (combat confrontation with the enemy's nuclear submarine), then ... And if there is ?! How (and how) will he be able to answer? Will be able to catch up? Can attack ?! ...
                1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                  April 6 2021 07: 11
                  0
                  Quote: Vl Nemchinov
                  but it is interesting: HOW CAN HE please the fleet, with its weapons and price (!)

                  It was not about the composition of weapons, or the price, it was about obsolescence. And that the corvette 20380 does not fully meet its tasks, I have been writing for a long time
                  1. Nemchinov Vl
                    Nemchinov Vl April 6 2021 12: 11
                    0
                    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                    And that the corvette 20380 does not fully meet its tasks, I have been writing for a long time
                    but why is he contracted then ?!, but do not allow pr. 11664?. Why is no work done on the mistakes? why are they not forced (and are not funded in a targeted manner) work on promising D-500 engines (based on 8000 and 10000 hp), which Kolomna asked to finance three years ago?
                    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                      April 6 2021 12: 15
                      0
                      Quote: Vl Nemchinov
                      but why, then, is he contracted?!, and not for example, project 11664?. Why isn't work done on the mistakes?

                      You understand that you don't need to ask me about this.
                      1. Nemchinov Vl
                        Nemchinov Vl April 6 2021 12: 21
                        +1
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        You understand that you don't need to ask me about this.
                        - of course I understand (!). hi
                        I asked your point of view. This is not a complaint against you. I am sympathetic to your articles. yes
                        You talked about "expediency of spending" the budget for the fleet, and my question was related to the fact that just - expediency , (from my point of view), while in shipbuilding programs not really is observed !!.
              2. FRoman1984
                FRoman1984 April 9 2021 06: 15
                0
                Tomkets ... they were the first and were abandoned in the end due to the low combat load, it was necessary to take more fuel in order to provide at least some adequate combat radius.
                And look at the F-18 - it is still in service, and they are not going to refuse, they are constantly modernizing the BREO. So with heavy vehicles for an aircraft carrier - the road to nowhere.

                Corvette 20380 did not please everyone: Simplified air defense system "redoubt" (without radar with polyment headlights), no radar line for the 96th missile. What will he defend without a medium-range missile ???
                Quite archaic GAK. Subsonic Uranium.

                And what kind of reactor for an aircraft carrier? It has yet to be developed, because the boats will not pull.
                1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                  April 9 2021 06: 57
                  0
                  Quote: FRoman1984
                  Tomkets ... they were the first and were abandoned in the end due to their low combat load

                  Sorry, but let's still study the materiel before writing this. The reasons why the Americans abandoned Tomkat were 100500, but a small combat load does not appear among them.
                  Quote: FRoman1984
                  And look at the F-18 - it is still in service, and they are not going to refuse, they are constantly modernizing the BREO. So with heavy vehicles for an aircraft carrier - the road to nowhere.

                  Uh-huh. True, the latest modifications of the "light" Superhornet reach 30 tons of maximum take-off. At the same time, the fleet requires a heavier aircraft
                  Quote: FRoman1984
                  Corvette 20380 did not please everyone

                  It's about cost, not that. to repeat 20380
                  Quote: FRoman1984
                  And what kind of reactor for an aircraft carrier?

                  RHYTHM, modification of the icebreaker
      2. timokhin-aa
        timokhin-aa April 4 2021 17: 09
        0
        Sevmash, shop 55 Why isn't it nice to you?


        1. The pool needs to be completely rebuilt.
        2. He will be busy for a long time with megalo boats.

        Building berth A Baltzavod.
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          April 4 2021 17: 45
          +1
          Quote: timokhin-aa
          1. The pool needs to be completely rebuilt.

          Completely - not necessary, and such an upgrade, as far as I know, was provided for by the original project. As well as the ability to build heavy ships in workshop 55
          Quote: timokhin-aa
          Building berth A Baltzavod.

          It is possible, I will not argue
          1. timokhin-aa
            timokhin-aa April 4 2021 18: 06
            0
            According to Sevmash - one of the alteration options here.
            https://t.me/SeaPower/299

            You can judge the scale for yourself.

            It is possible, I will not argue


            https://vpk-news.ru/articles/58851
            1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              April 5 2021 07: 56
              0
              Quote: timokhin-aa
              You can judge the scale for yourself.

              Billions of rubles. Not sure if it will make it to ten
              1. timokhin-aa
                timokhin-aa April 5 2021 14: 05
                0
                Will hold out + our traditional approaches to such projects (see mutilovo on the dock for Kuzi) + the fact that the NSR is busy building submarines up to its ears = Baltzavod.
                There is nothing to do at least if.
                1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                  April 5 2021 14: 10
                  0
                  Quote: timokhin-aa
                  + the fact that the NSR is busy building submarines up to their ears

                  The fact of the matter is that by the end of the 20s the Boreyev series will end, and it will be necessary to occupy the staff with something. It is possible, of course, with new submarines, but in principle, the 50th must cope with them.
                  Quote: timokhin-aa
                  Baltzavod.

                  I'm not really sure, yet 40 tons is somehow not enough. And the body width of the slipway ...
                  1. timokhin-aa
                    timokhin-aa April 5 2021 14: 13
                    0
                    I'm not really sure, yet 40 tons is somehow not enough.


                    Yes, but at least with "tricky" contours - why not?

                    And the body width of the slipway ...


                    See the example of the Hindus and Vikranta. They decided the same question, moreover, if the "Vikrant" happened to be built in our country, it would be built at the Baltzavod.
                    At the same time, there you can get 30-40 meters in length and 1500 tons of launch weight.
                    And then weld the side sponsons and the island near the wall.
  • AML
    AML April 3 2021 12: 00
    0
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    Quote: AML
    Well, take and build 2-3 aircraft carriers and what to do with them? Keep in the bays?

    Have you read the article at all? Or, as usual, "I have not read, but I condemn"?


    Am I condemning? I'm all for it if the Russian Federation has a full-fledged fleet. I wrote. that everything is not as simple as you described, and not always everything depends on money.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      April 3 2021 16: 23
      +1
      Quote: AML
      I wrote. that everything is not as simple as you described

      That is, after all, they did not read it. You write
      Quote: AML
      Well, take and build 2-3 aircraft carriers and what to do with them? Keep in the bays? An infrastructure needs to be created for the aircraft carrier,

      The article is written
      The only caveat is that I would not start such construction right away, but initially I would take care of the bases and maintenance of the fleet. I would take a delay of several years, during which I would send less to ships, planes and missiles, but more to all the necessary infrastructure. Thus, within three to four years, at least 300-400 billion rubles could be spent on these purposes. Which, in principle, could be enough for a lot.

      You write
      Quote: AML
      support ships

      In the table of the article, a whole class of ships is allocated for this - destroyers. AND
      We did not count the supplies of equipment to the BRAV and Marine Corps units, did not take into account the landing ships, did not count the Caspian Flotilla, did not take into account the specific tasks of lighting the underwater situation, small OVR ships, and also did not take into account the auxiliary fleet - tugs, tankers, supply vessels, rescuers, etc. Well, let's add another 15% of the previously calculated amounts to everything. Offhand, 1,429 trillion rubles is quite enough for all these needs.

      That is, everything that you have written is provided for in the article. But you were too lazy to read it
  • Alexander Vorontsov
    Alexander Vorontsov April 3 2021 16: 38
    0
    If we want to have four dozen corvettes with a service life of 40 years

    No, I understand that the more number you write, the less it will turn out for a year.
    But corvettes don't run that much. Or do they walk? Is it possible to prove the resource?


    And the number of helicopters as counted?
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      April 3 2021 17: 17
      0
      Quote: Alexander Vorontsov
      No, I understand that the more number you write, the less it will turn out for a year.
      But corvettes don't run that much.

      Even smaller ships are sailing. For example, MRK project 1234 "Iceberg" - entered service in 1979, is still in service, as part of the forces of constant readiness. The same applies to the IPC - some of them are already close to 40 years old.
      Quote: Alexander Vorontsov
      And the number of helicopters as counted?

      By helicopter to the ship that carries these same helicopters (on the aircraft carrier - 10 pcs) and 24 additional helicopters for the fleet
  • Israel
    Israel April 3 2021 17: 30
    0
    This is all interesting, but as long as Russia loses to Italy in terms of GDP, all this is meaningless even in the medium term.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      April 3 2021 21: 55
      0
      Quote: Israel
      This is all interesting, but so far Russia is losing out to Italy in terms of GDP.

      What's the difference, sorry? We allocate the indicated amounts for defense at the current GDP
  • silver_roman
    silver_roman April 4 2021 00: 17
    0
    Another would be to estimate the stocks for the bookmarking of this whole armada. That and the corvette a year, while we finish building the series, the first serial ones should be written off. 2 aircraft carriers about nothing. According to the concept, at least 4 are needed so that they not just hang out in the world's oceans, but cover at least some areas. another third would lay corruption and, in principle, probably somewhere it will be so. And if you also take into account the large lobby of this or that unnecessary project, it is not yet clear how much money is in the barrel. We would like to bring our etafon up to the level of some poko or redmi, Baikal could be brought up to the level of core 2 duo at least, etc. I don’t even dream about AvtoVAZ. miscarriage and no more))). and still somehow ms-21 to put on stream and bring it to the market. There will already be a case.
  • AML
    AML April 4 2021 08: 27
    0
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk

    That is, everything that you have written is provided for in the article. But you were too lazy to read it


    As stipulated speak. Yeah.

    1) Statistically, in peacetime, an economic crisis occurs every 8 years. This is statistically, but practically 2008, 2014, 2019. Based on this, rely only on inflation, well, I don't even know.

    2) An increase in the fleet entails an increase in personnel, which seems to be logical, and implies by itself - new houses, schools, hospitals, roads, railways, with the appropriate infrastructure. Civilian objects to be funded from the MO budget. And this itself will not be designed and built.

    3) The fleet in itself is good, but I want the fleet to be trained. Where did you put the amount for the exercises, in the same 15%? Let me remind you that one firing of a rocket from a submarine is about 500 million rubles.

    4) Do you find a discrepancy in the fact that the fleet is growing, and your fixed costs remain at the same level?

    With a great deal of optimism, you can safely increase the estimated amount by 2.

    And that's just a little bit of the economy. Theory is good, but the practice is somewhat different.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      April 5 2021 07: 55
      0
      Quote: AML
      As stipulated speak. Yeah.

      Ага.
      Quote: AML
      Statistically, in peacetime, an economic crisis occurs every 8 years. This is statistically, but practically 2008, 2014, 2019. Based on this, rely only on inflation, well, I don't even know.

      Firstly, if you were at least a little savvy in economics, then you would know such a concept - "current prices". Crises can happen, inflation can rage, but the fact is, AT CURRENT PRICES it will be the same figure.
      Quote: AML
      An increase in the fleet entails an increase in personnel, which seems to be logical, and implies by itself - new houses, schools, hospitals, roads, railways, with the appropriate infrastructure.

      I want to remind you that the infrastructure for the population was created under the Soviet Navy, which was much more numerous than what I have written down. Something will need to be added, of course, well, that's how I wrote about the possibility of a preparatory period.
      Quote: AML
      The fleet itself is good, but I want the fleet to be trained. Where did you put the amount for the exercises, in the same 15%?

      The exercise is funded from completely different amounts - for which (in aggregate for the Armed Forces) in 2019 it was supposed to spend almost 1,5 trillion. rub, see infographic
      Quote: AML
      Do you find a problem that the fleet is growing, and your fixed costs remain at the same level?

      And what kind of CONSTANT expenses should grow for the fleet? :))))) Tell us, do not torment :)))
      Quote: AML
      With a great deal of optimism, you can safely increase the estimated amount by 2.

      Delirium
  • AML
    AML April 5 2021 12: 41
    -1
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk

    Firstly, if you were at least a little savvy in economics, then you would know such a concept - "current prices". Crises can happen, inflation can rage, but the fact is, AT CURRENT PRICES it will be the same figure.


    Because of these hands-on economists, the construction time is shifting to the right all the time. And where they think correctly, there are no overlaps.

    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk

    I want to remind you that the infrastructure for the population was created under the Soviet Navy, which was much more numerous than what I have written down. Something will need to be added, of course, well, that's how I wrote about the possibility of a preparatory period.


    In Balaklava, the one in the Crimea, there is a shelter for diesel-electric submarines built under the USSR, I want to see how you will shove a Warsaw woman there.

    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    The exercise is funded from completely different amounts - for which (in aggregate for the Armed Forces) in 2019 it was supposed to spend almost 1,5 trillion. rub, see infographic


    You are funny. There is a fixed budget, in this case, MO, if it increases somewhere, it means that it will decrease somewhere. MO has no bedside table.

    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk

    And what kind of CONSTANT expenses should grow for the fleet? :))))) Tell us, do not torment :)))
    Delirium


    Of course it's nonsense, so you decided to buy a bucket of black caviar, and there was still 100 rubles of money left. Cute. Why are you going to serve the fattened fleet? From the same nightstand? For what the salary will pay people. Eli suppose that there is still a wagon in the warehouse since the times of the USSR? Borea has a crew of 107, including 55 officers. On a good level, each crew is reserved. Almost every officer has a wife and children. Hence, kindergartens, schools, hospitals, etc.

    Or you like in a joke.
    - Where do you work?
    - I will not say, a military secret.
    - Do they pay well?
    - A chirp for a grenade.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      April 5 2021 14: 06
      +1
      Quote: AML
      Because of these hands-on economists, the construction time is shifting to the right all the time. And where they think correctly, there are no overlaps.

      :))))) Who else was not accused of shifting to the right, now they got to me :)))))))
      You see, since you are clearly at odds with the basics of the economy, not to mention military pricing, your opinion for me ... well, let's put it mildly, it's hard to underestimate :)
      Quote: AML
      In Balaklava, the one in the Crimea, there is a shelter for diesel-electric submarines built under the USSR, I want to see how you will shove a Warsaw woman there.

      Oooh how it all started
      You wrote to me
      Quote: AML
      An increase in the fleet entails an increase in personnel, which seems to be logical, and implies by itself - new houses, schools, hospitals, roads, railways, with the appropriate infrastructure. Civil objectsthat will be funded by their MO budget.

      To this I gave you the answer that this infrastructure was once created for the Soviet Navy. And suddenly
      Quote: AML
      In Balaklava, the one in Crimea, there is a shelter for diesel-electric submarines built during the USSR

      Since when did the shelter for diesel-electric submarines suddenly become a CIVIL facility? :)))
      Quote: AML
      You are funny. There is a fixed budget, in this case, MO, if it increases somewhere, it means that it will decrease somewhere. MO has no bedside table.

      You talk about economics, but you simply cannot understand the enlarged budget items. Look HERE again

      And we see that in addition to the purchase of weapons for 1,022 trillion. rub. (of which I stipulated the financing of the purchase of weapons and military equipment for the fleet) the budget provides for 1,474 trillion for the maintenance of people, combat training, and so on. Including the fleet, yes.
      Quote: AML
      Of course it's nonsense, so you decided to buy a bucket of black caviar, and there was still 100 rubles of money left. Cute. Why are you going to serve the fattened fleet? From the same nightstand?

      Of course, this will require a certain amount of additional funds, because there will be more ships than NOW. For example, the nuclear submarine is now in the fleet at a glance of 35 units (I can forget something, I write from memory, but I should not make a big mistake), and I'm talking about increasing to 56 units (albeit of a smaller size). But diesel-electric submarines 22, and I propose to reduce them to 16.
      That is, there is already a 25% increase in hulls, but bad luck - the difference in the number of crews will be much lower, since the PLATs I offer will have a crew closer to the Varshavyanka, and not to the Pike or Antey. So there, as it were, there is no savings :))))
      Thus, of course, additional funds for the maintenance of "my" Navy will be needed, but - very, very soon, and not too large, and there can be no talk of any "coefficients 2" there.
  • AML
    AML April 5 2021 22: 00
    0
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk

    :))))) Who else was not accused of shifting to the right, now they got to me :)))))))

    And what do you have to do with it? I talked about economists.

    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk

    You see, since you are clearly at odds with the basics of the economy, not to mention military pricing, your opinion for me ... well, let's put it mildly, it's hard to underestimate :)


    I hope MO has the same opinion of you. And what you think of me, I don't care.

    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk

    Oooh how it all started


    I see no point in quoting this canvas further. You started jerking stupidly. They pulled out one quote, connected it with another and got the answer they needed. At least ugly.

    Did you find kindergartens, schools and hospitals in military camps funded from the civil budget? They hang on the MO balance sheet.

    Once again for those on the armored train.
    There is a fixed budget. You cannot pull amounts out of it without prejudice to other items of expenditure.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      April 6 2021 08: 38
      +1
      Quote: AML
      And what do you have to do with it? I talked about economists.

      You see, I am an economist who saved one city-forming enterprise from bankruptcy in due time and pulled the second out of the crisis and losses. Apart from smaller structures. And he worked (including seias, by the way) at enterprises that carry out state defense orders.
      Quote: AML
      I hope MO has the same opinion of you.

      "Hope dies last," said Vera and shot Lyubov :)
      Quote: AML
      I see no point in quoting this canvas further. You started to juggle stupidly.

      Not me. You talked about civilian objects, then went to the military, and I am to blame? :)))
      Quote: AML
      Did you find kindergartens, schools and hospitals in military camps funded from the civil budget? They hang on the MO balance sheet.

      AGAIN. You spoke to me about infrastructure facilities for the population
      Quote: AML
      An increase in the fleet entails an increase in personnel, which seems to be logical, and implies by itself - new houses, schools, hospitals, roads, railways, with the appropriate infrastructure.

      FOR THE POPULATION. In response, I told you that
      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
      I want to remind you that the infrastructure for the population was created under the Soviet Navy, which was much more numerous than what I have written down. Something will need to be added, of course, well, that's how I wrote about the possibility of a preparatory period.

      That is, the same Vidyaevo was built not at all on the basis of "3,5 boats" that are there today, but from the needs of the USSR Navy, that is, much more than is now in demand. Is this understandable, or is it too difficult for you again?
      1. agond
        agond April 6 2021 20: 47
        0
        From Alice through the looking glass
        "I should have bought a ticket from the driver.
        The man who drives the locomotive.
        Do you know how much the smoke from a steam locomotive costs?
        One thousand pounds one ring. "
        pricing is a muddy thing and is not clear.
  • AML
    AML April 6 2021 21: 40
    0
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk

    You see, I am an economist who saved one city-forming enterprise from bankruptcy in due time and pulled the second out of the crisis and losses. Apart from smaller structures. And he worked (including seias, by the way) at enterprises that carry out state defense orders.

    The village of Velikie Perdyuki also fulfills the state order, as it grows carrots for horses of the equestrian Buryats. Does this mean that the Perduks are involved?
    You tell the grandmas at the entrance such tingling stories, they will be imbued with.

    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk

    Not me. You talked about civilian objects, then went to the military, and I am to blame? :)))
    .
    AGAIN. You spoke to me about infrastructure facilities for the population



    That's how I want to quote. - Uncle, are you?
    Do you even understand what a closed military city is? If it's rude, then the cleaning lady at the school will have a military rank. Nobody will transfer schools and hospitals for conventional funding, because by simple calculations it is found out how many servicemen are at the facility. By the number of officers, you can +/- estimate the composition and tasks. Or do you think that on bases with tactical and strategic weapons everyone can ride a bicycle on a cross? If you are at least half of what you have written about yourself, then go to the 6th section, they will teach you the mind to reason. Maybe then it will come, what I originally wrote, but for now everything is on the rails.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      April 7 2021 07: 20
      0
      Quote: AML
      Tell the grandmothers at the entrance such tingling stories

      Well, I told one :)))
      Quote: AML
      Do you even understand what a closed military city is? If it's rude, then the cleaning lady at the school will have a military rank. No one will transfer schools and hospitals to conventional funding

      That's how I want to quote
      Quote: AML
      Uncle, you?

      What does FINANCING have to do with it when it comes to the APPOINTMENT OF THE OBJECT? In your poor little head, everything is completely confused. Have I mentioned civil funding at least once?
      You are telling me here that there is not enough infrastructure. I say that there is a lot of infrastructure, because it was built at one time with the expectation of serving a much larger number of people than there is now. What does funding have to do with it?
  • Dmitry Chelyabinsk
    Dmitry Chelyabinsk April 7 2021 18: 38
    0
    According to the final plate with the ship's composition, it turned out to be approximately the fleet, founded by Kuzin and Nikolsky in the 1990s. AB is less by two units than theirs; for multipurpose nuclear submarines by 8 units more. One and a half to two times less fighters and helicopters.
    Kuzin and Nikolsky estimated the number of personnel of such a fleet at 170-200 thousand people, in connection with which the cost of their maintenance is of interest.
    Our fleet today is staffed under a contract, and it cannot be otherwise - with a one-year term of service for conscripts.
    For the calculation, we use the Cash Allowance Calculator for the period from 01.10.2020. servicemen doing military service under the contract, from the website of the Ministry of Defense.
    A sailor in the Northern Fleet receives an average of 42 rubles. Lieutenant 000 rubles.
    Let's add the costs of states on military mortgages, from 20 to 000 rubles. per month for each per month. Let's take an average of 40 rubles.
    In total, a sailor will cost an average of 864 rubles per year. Lieutenant at 000.
    With the number of 170 thousand people, of which 15% are officers, the monthly maintenance of personnel (with such a simplified calculation) will amount to 160 billion rubles. This does not include military pensions for retirees, the cost of annual vouchers for military personnel and their family members, payment for their travel in Russia, etc.
    I believe it would be correct to add these amounts to the "post-settlement" 400 billion / year.
  • keleg
    keleg April 8 2021 02: 29
    0
    Yes, you can calculate a little easier. Our economy is comparable to the British-French one. Considering that the ground forces are more important for Russia, we will not have a larger fleet than France or Britain.
  • clerk
    clerk April 13 2021 16: 06
    0
    ... With all these amendments, the average annual cost of building a fleet will amount to 321,3 billion rubles per year. What else have I missed?

    Of course, the costs of repairs, the creation of infrastructure, R&D, but about them - a little later
    So what about the repairs - what percentage of the cost will the repairs cost? Maybe double your annual spending? And the basic question: - where to get 2% of the state budget for construction and maintenance of all this splendor annually?
  • 3danimal
    3danimal 6 May 2021 13: 44
    0
    As for the PLO planes and helicopters, then, most likely, it will be more difficult - we have not been working on the creation of such equipment for a long time, with all due respect to the developers of Novella - this is already yesterday.

    The PLO aircraft is needed on the basis of a passenger turbofan liner, the same MC-21, ideally.
    Helicopter - the Ka-60/62 needs fine-tuning, which can become an analogue of the UH-60 / SH-60.
    the creation of an AWACS aircraft of moderate size on the basis of, say, the "modernized" Yak-44, although difficult and time-consuming, looks quite feasible for us. In which, I repeat, not only the fleet is interested.

    A more useful AWACS will be based on a tiltrotor (which has yet to be created, as well as a radar for it).
  • 3danimal
    3danimal 6 May 2021 13: 46
    0
    But in both steam and electromagnetic catapults, a large backlog has been preserved since the times of the USSR, so there are no unsolvable problems here either.

    Have you saved all the drawings, the specialists who participated in the development and the enterprises that produced the spare parts? Technological lines?
  • 3danimal
    3danimal 6 May 2021 14: 13
    0
    In principle, it is fully confirmed by foreign experience - larger US aircraft carriers cost about as much as 4–5 of their multipurpose nuclear submarines. For example, "Illinois" (type "Virginia") cost US taxpayers $ 2,7 billion. And "Gerald R. Ford", transferred to the Navy in 2017, "pulled" about $ 13 billion. But let's not forget that Illinois is still a serial ship, and Ford is the lead ship.

    The comparison is incorrect.
    Newport News Shipbuilding ships have superior experience, know-how and production capacity in AB construction.
    You can just as well name a coefficient of 8-10 of the cost of MAPL.
    The biggest problem is that it is impossible to accurately predict the construction time, in our reality.