Military Review

Criteria for the effectiveness of the Navy

53

Source: wikipedia.org


I'll start with the platitudes. The Navy is a part of the armed forces that has its own tasks and functions within the framework of a unified defense planning.

I will continue with another commonplace. IN stories Russia has repeatedly forgotten about this. And they built a fleet for the sake of fleet... And ships. Because the Germans (British, Americans) have such. This disease is not only ours, many suffered from this disease, planting astronomical budgets in ships that serve as yachts for presidential kings, or as a kind of symbol - they say, we are oceanic too, we can too.

Meanwhile, the range of tasks that the Navy is capable of performing is narrow and simple:

1. Protecting its coastline and its maritime trade and fisheries.
2. Attack of another's coast, disruption of its trade and industries in case of war.
3. The projection of force in the form of amphibious operations and the demonstration of the flag in third world countries.
4. Restraining factor in politics.

The XNUMXth century added to this list the task of covering the NSNF of our own and the attack of the NSNF of aliens. But this is not for everyone, but for a narrow circle of nuclear powers. Moreover, not all of them can afford this luxury: it is expensive and very difficult.

And the only measure of efficiency is wars / conflicts / crises and how the Navy fulfilled its tasks during their period. It is about the tasks in the global sense, not about the pre-war plans. The pre-war plans have one peculiarity - they are never implemented, at least in full, at most - in general. Russia in 1904-1905 is an example of this approach. With a huge fleet of battleships, a horde of cruisers, and a flock of destroyers, the Russian Imperial Navy did not fulfill a single task. The enemy carried out amphibious operations, disrupted our communications, was able to defend its territory and did not perceive our fleet as a deterrent.

But the small and frail Soviet Navy fulfilled its task during the Cuban missile crisis. They transported what they wanted to Cuba and created a threat to the United States. In the end the rattling weapons managed to translate into bargaining, and bargaining - in a gradual relaxation of international relations. The rest, in fact, details - how many rivets were in the battleship "Eagle", the speed of transports from ICBMs in 1962, the diameters of the pipes of the admiral's latrines, and so on. This is interesting, of course. But by and large it does not affect anything.

No, in a war, say, between Poland and Germany or the USSR and Finland, performance characteristics and types of ships are important ... for small ones. You can build a powerful coastal defense and shelter your ships from air strikes, like the Finns, than still create unacceptable risks of an enemy landing operation. Or you can draw a beautiful plan for the leaders' raids on Kronstadt, build these very leaders and knock them down before the war begins, because in this sinful world such raids are impossible, and if you don't have your own air force above your head, you won't go out to sea - they will drown like kittens.

For the same Soviet Navy, the problem was not so acute - keep the Red Army Baltic and our boats and submariners would go on raids on the communications of the Germans. Didn't hold back? All the same, the fleet came in handy - for the defense of Tallinn and Leningrad. The more varied the composition of the fleet, the more opportunities there are. But again, this is only available to the big and the rich. The United States put them on battleships in the interwar period, and when it got tight, they built an aircraft carrier fleet. And not only aircraft carrier - torpedo boats, submarines, sea Aviation... In England, they were preparing for battles with surface German raiders, but when they pinned down, they found weapons against German submarines, setting up clouds of escort ships. And the Germans ... There was a surface fleet, but it became underwater, and in mind-boggling quantities at that time.


What is today's Russia?

Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu at the final collegium of the military department with the participation of Russian President Vladimir Putin said that the military budget of the Russian Federation in 2020 will fall to ninth place in the world, while in 2019 it was in eighth place. At the same time, the US military budget in 2020 will reach almost $ 750 billion for the first time, which can be compared with the combined annual military budget of all countries.

We are a country, of course, strong and powerful: both on land and at sea, but not the most advanced, as in the days of Gorshkov. If about new ships and only the latest generations, then the Russian Federation has five frigates, eight corvettes, three patrol ships, two large landing ships and other trifles.

Under water, of course, everything is more fun - 3 SSBNs and one SSGN. With diesel boats ... not bad - 9 ships. True, one of them is rather experimental. Everything else is a Soviet legacy. Of course, many different things are being built. But the fact of the matter is that in a series of endless crises, into which world politics has turned, a demonstration of force may be needed here and now. And the ships on the slipways somehow do not frighten. You can remember the old ships, of course - we have a lot of them, but their era is leaving, and the combat value is often questionable.

Again, this is neither good nor bad, it turned out that way. If you don't build anything for 20 years, then the result will be appropriate. If you do not have the necessary means and goals, then why chase the unattainable?

In this sense, we have just chosen a reasonable strategy: the priority is to protect the coast and renew the NSNF, and the ocean zone ... There is enough to display the flag.

Of course, not without kinks. Of course, it staggers. Definitely, sailors and shipbuilders want aircraft carriers, nuclear destroyers and, in general, so as to defeat the "insidious NAT" on the seas, but ... Why? Nobody believes in a non-nuclear war, but in local conflicts it’s enough.

Ideally, of course, you would need:

1. To preserve the aircraft carrier component at all costs. For this, "Kuznetsov" is suitable as a combat training ship, especially since there are no options. At the same time, he needs a replacement - one, maximum two aircraft carriers, preferably light ones. We will overstrain from more, we will not pull. And so, having saved the school and touched off, over time we will be able to turn around, if need be.

2. I personally do not see the problem of escort - it is necessary to complete the "Nakhimov" and modernize the "Petra". "Atlantes", of course, are already finalizing their time - it is inexorable. But again, for the study and demonstration of the flag of the pair of "Eagles" - behind the eyes.

3. NSNF is being built here. For me, this is even too much. Taking into account the restrictions on START-3: it is better to have more complexes on land and fewer in the sea, where it is almost more difficult to cover them. But with multipurpose ... They need more and simpler. Severodvinsk is an attempt to create a kind of goldfish, unique, but expensive, and therefore few in number. There are no problems with diesel - we build quickly and cheaply. True, this is not a new, to put it mildly, project, but better than nothing.

4. Destroyers? But no. Again, no money, no technology for Leaders. It remains to be hoped that the super-Gorshkovs will be released by the shipbuilders. In the meantime, it would be worthwhile to focus on the corvette frigates. But without wobbling between projects and searching for the next "unparalleled". As one Soviet politician used to say, "Don't do better - do as they do."

5. Well, MRK, MDK, minesweepers, coastal defense complexes and naval aviation. Where can we go without them? Plus a floating rear, which is still to be developed and developed. Our problem with this is chronic and traditional.

6. Amphibious forces? For me, it's better to be simpler. Expensive and sophisticated BDKs and UDCs under construction are good. But, as Syria has shown, the main thing is not to protect, the main thing is tonnage, and we have problems with it. The situation when it is necessary to supply a huge group is not uncommon, but quite a routine. And when you have to buy and rent old civilian ships all over the world, it's a shame.

And the main thing. So that the military fleet was needed not for parades and demonstrations of superpower, we need a merchant fleet, a fishing fleet, bases around the world and a powerful industry. Then the ocean ships will be in demand, and then there will be money. And chasing the United States or China just "so that it was" is the sure way to a new Tsushima or the cut of the 90s. We will not catch up and go bankrupt, there are many examples in Russian history.
Author:
53 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. The comment was deleted.
  2. Anzhey V.
    Anzhey V. April 14 2021 11: 08
    +7
    need a merchant fleet, a fishing fleet, bases around the world and a powerful industry


    But this idea, though banal, is very good.
    1. WHAT IS
      WHAT IS April 14 2021 11: 32
      +13
      And who, excuse me, will defend this merchant and fishing fleet if the navy is not needed in the author's opinion? It is precisely the protection of Russia's economic interests in the waters of the World Ocean that is one of the main tasks of the Navy and it is recorded in the operational documents of the General Staff of the Fleet. For example, Until the early 90s, the Svalbard area was constantly patrolled by Russian patrol ships, and there were no captures of Russian fishermen's vessels there, this is a question of the effectiveness of the Navy. And not so long ago, the Navy's formations ensured the protection of fishing vessels in almost all areas of the World Ocean. the 7th squadron of surface ships operated in the northern waters, the 5th squadron patrolled the Mediterranean Sea, the 8th squadron controlled the Indian Ocean zone, and the 10th squadron solved these tasks in the Pacific Ocean. The same tasks were solved by the ships based at the Vietnamese base Cam Ranh ...
      1. lucul
        lucul April 14 2021 12: 05
        -6
        And who, excuse me, will defend this merchant and fishing fleet if the navy is not needed in the author's opinion?

        Do not put the cart in front of the horse))))
        First, the merchant fleet, and only then the military, and not otherwise))))
        1. WHAT IS
          WHAT IS April 14 2021 12: 16
          +9
          It is the horse (the navy) that drags the cart (trade and fishing and others) always and everywhere.
          Russia needs a fleet that at any given moment could fight with a fleet that is at the level of the latest scientific requirements. If this does not happen, if Russia has a different fleet, then it will only be harmful, since it will inevitably become the prey of the attackers.
          Defenselessness at sea is as dangerous as defenselessness on land, which is why powerful states have built powerful fleets everywhere.
          1. Mordvin 3
            Mordvin 3 April 14 2021 12: 54
            -6
            Quote: WHAT IS
            It is the horse (the navy) that drags the cart (trade and fishing and others) always and everywhere.

            They dragged something a little when the Norwegians were catching Electron.
          2. lucul
            lucul April 14 2021 12: 56
            -2
            It is the horse (the navy) that drags the cart (trade and fishing and others) always and everywhere.

            I explain on the fingers, if it is not clear that way.
            Here you have a merchant, he has become so rich that he is able to create his own trade caravan, but there is still no money to guard the caravan, which means he chooses the safest caravan route, bypassing all possible risks (low profitability). Having become even more rich, the merchant already hires the guard of the caravan and chooses a not so safe route (but more profitable). The more the merchant gets richer, the more caravans he has and the more protection these caravans have (the norm).
            You, however, propose to first create a caravan guard (the most powerful of all), in the hope that the caravan will be formed by itself (aha), from scratch, without a merchant and a trade route.
          3. Tavrik
            Tavrik April 14 2021 17: 10
            +2
            On the contrary. The world's navies have emerged (branched off from merchant) to protect merchant shipping. When they realized that the installation of guns on the "merchants" does not always help and special ships are needed. buildings, then military fleets appeared. And our navy appeared at the whim of the tsar with incomprehensible goals, like, everyone has it, well, we need it.
          4. Mustached Kok
            Mustached Kok April 14 2021 20: 11
            +1
            How can a military fleet be ahead if its creation requires money and resources, which are brought by the merchant fleet ?! So in the beginning you need economics and finance, and already at this growth - start rebuilding the fleet
          5. bayard
            bayard April 15 2021 04: 19
            +4
            Quote: WHAT IS
            It is the horse (the navy) that drags the cart (trade and fishing and others) always and everywhere.

            No, the horse is the merchant and fishing fleet that pulls the cart of industry and commerce. And the navy is a "man with a gun" sitting on this cart and guarding both the horse and the goods dumped on the cart.
            Once upon a time, I talked with one old shipbuilder - the head of a workshop from Severodvinsk. So he told me about "Gorshkov's shipbuilding doctrine." And Gorshkov, by the way, gave priority in construction to the merchant fleet, so that there was something to defend and at whose expense to build. He said that there was a quota for the construction of each type of warship - how many civilians should be built first. Cited examples.
            Now, if you need to build a nuclear submarine, then first you need to build about ten ships:
            - one ocean-class tanker,
            - one dry cargo ship or bulk carrier,
            - a couple of port floating cranes,
            - four fishing trawlers
            ... well, and something else.
            And when these ships are built and begin to bring in arrivals ... to build a military nuclear-powered ship.
            It may be exaggerated, of course, but that was precisely the "shipbuilding doctrine of Gorshkov."
            And about the return on civil courts and their payback ...
            An old shipbuilder gave the following example: “For example, to recoup an ocean tanker, he needs to make ONE voyage on the Hamburg-Melbourne route ... and that's it - the tanker paid off, and then it only works for profit, beating off the construction of a nuclear submarine. Together with others, of course ". The payback of fishing vessels is also very fast, and our fishing fleet, it seems, was the largest in the world ... It brought good profits ... And currency ... well, of course, they stole on this - selling fish to the left ...
            But this, of course, was in the USSR, where the entire economy was state-owned ... which means it was national.
            But nevertheless, we also need something like "Gorshkov's shipbuilding doctrine".
            Otherwise, there will be distortions.
            Skewing towards the navy will lead to waste.
            Lack of naval ships will lead to the insecurity of our shipping and overseas business. So in this case, balance is needed.
        2. Doccor18
          Doccor18 April 14 2021 15: 20
          +5
          Quote: lucul
          Do not put the cart in front of the horse))))
          First, the merchant fleet, and only then the military, and not otherwise))))

          We need both a "horse" and a "cart" at the same time.
          The development of the merchant fleet and the military should be simultaneous. One cannot "drag" one another ... One earns money, the other protects him. To go to the nearest sea means to come to terms with the fact that someone else will have a gesheft from your goods.
          1. Tavrik
            Tavrik April 14 2021 17: 12
            0
            And what about the number of merchant ships of all classes flying the flag of the Russian Federation? In the USSR, it seems, there were more than 5000 ... Whom are they going to defend?
            1. bayard
              bayard April 15 2021 04: 36
              +4
              So it is necessary to legislatively solve this - to transfer merchant ships to Russian jurisdiction.
              Otherwise ... just pumping Russian money into offshore banks and economies will continue.
        3. antivirus
          antivirus April 14 2021 16: 50
          +6
          cows come first. to horses and carts - to populate your country with your own people, not alien ghasts. the whole country begins from the dawn cow and her mistress, the milkmaid tMani.
          but not like AB ...
          1. bayard
            bayard April 15 2021 04: 41
            +3
            In order to prioritize "aunt many", it is necessary to return to the Stalin Constitution, where the main priority was "the maximum satisfaction of the needs of the working people." When "everything is for the good of man ... Man of labor ...".
            But these are, of course, dreams.
            The ideology of the ruling party in Russia is "Exploitation of man by man".
            So there will be no concern for either Aunt Manet or the aircraft carriers.
    2. TermNachTer
      TermNachTer April 14 2021 11: 55
      +3
      And who will defend all these nishtyaks? Representative to the UN?))) In this world, only the strong are considered. ... The issues of the country's defense and the survival of the people are measured not in rubles, and not in dollars.
      1. Jacket in stock
        Jacket in stock April 14 2021 13: 38
        +6
        Quote: TermNachTER
        The issues of the country's defense and the survival of the people are measured not in rubles, and not in dollars.

        Yes, that's just in rubles, dollars, tugriks ...
        For if you have these tugriks dumb, then your fleet and army are dumb, for there is nothing to feed the sailors with soldiers, and there is nothing to put on, and there is nowhere to give them weapons. And there is no need, for they will scatter on the other sides of a better, well-fed life to look for.
        1. TermNachTer
          TermNachTer April 26 2021 12: 33
          0
          When you have a lot of tugriks, but there is no army to protect these tugriks, then soon your tugriks will no longer be yours))) as well as natural resources, water resources, etc.
          1. Jacket in stock
            Jacket in stock April 26 2021 12: 49
            0
            Quote: TermNachTER
            When you have a lot of tugriks, but there is no army to protect these tugriks, soon your tugriks will no longer be yours))

            I agree.
            But.
            If you don’t have tugriks, then there’s no place for the army.
            For this is a very expensive pleasure.
            And if you want a cheap army, then very soon they will explain to you that this does not happen, and soon you will lose both your tugriks and what you considered an army.
            1. TermNachTer
              TermNachTer April 26 2021 18: 01
              0
              You need a reasonable balance, but you can't skimp on defense.
  3. Woodman
    Woodman April 14 2021 11: 11
    0
    Russia in 1904-1905 is an example of this approach. With a huge fleet of battleships, a horde of cruisers, and a flock of destroyers, the Russian Imperial Navy did not fulfill a single task. The enemy carried out amphibious operations, disrupted our communications, was able to defend its territory and did not perceive our fleet as a deterrent.

    But the small and frail Soviet Navy fulfilled its task during the Cuban missile crisis. They transported what they wanted to Cuba and created a threat to the United States.
    In my opinion, a very incorrect comparison.
    1. TermNachTer
      TermNachTer April 14 2021 11: 56
      +3
      Incorrect - this is very soft. the author is nonsense, but with a clever look and with a "zakosom" under the scientific)))
  4. Eldorado
    Eldorado April 14 2021 11: 14
    +2
    Another diarrhea ... negative
  5. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
    Andrei from Chelyabinsk April 14 2021 11: 20
    +7
    The author writes in the table of contents about the criteria of efficiency, and in the article he casually mentions that it is effective when the fleet performs its tasks, and ineffectively when it does not fulfill its tasks (citing, alas, an extremely crooked example), and otherwise talks about his own vision of the composition of the Russian Navy.
    The title does not match the article
    1. SVD68
      SVD68 April 14 2021 12: 33
      0
      At the same time, the author proposes to build a fleet not for specific tasks, but in general. We'll see how it goes. And how will it turn out if, God forbid, there is a war?
      1. antivirus
        antivirus April 14 2021 16: 53
        +2
        like any civilian - priorities - from the cow to the roads and the protection of the borders - THEN (AT 17 PLACE) OVERSEAS. this is not my opinion, but apparently the opinion of the Tuvan Shoigu.
        Control of Eurasia.
  6. rocket757
    rocket757 April 14 2021 11: 21
    -3
    1. Protecting its coastline and its maritime trade and fisheries.
    2. Attack of another's coast, disruption of its trade and industries in case of war.
    3. The projection of force in the form of amphibious operations and the demonstration of the flag in third world countries.
    4. The deterrent factor in politics

    In our current state, this is all provided by only one, but reliable, proven .... vigorous loaves, available and promising.
    Even if not everything that one would like is needed, they provide, but they make it possible to do what is needed without much rush!
  7. Vladimir_2U
    Vladimir_2U April 14 2021 11: 28
    -2
    Russia in 1904-1905 is an example of this approach. With a huge fleet of battleships, a horde of cruisers, flocks of destroyers, the Russian Imperial Navy did not fulfill a single task.
    How can you write about something without knowing the subject! The RIF did not have battleships or destroyers at that time!
    1. max702
      max702 April 14 2021 11: 41
      +4
      Battleships are just like ships for battle in a line, that is, they are completely battleships, the author did not speak about battleships ..
      1. Vladimir_2U
        Vladimir_2U April 14 2021 11: 57
        -2
        Quote: max702
        the author did not speak about battleships.

        Battleships are LINEARS. And the battleships were no longer sailing battleships, and the battleships "All big gun" did not become.
        1. max702
          max702 April 14 2021 12: 04
          +2
          Battleships are ships for tactical reception "battle in line" about which the author said and why you are bringing battleships here, it is not clear, a battleship is a battle cruiser, that is, a ship capable of cruising operations due to high speed, and not only for linear combat, battleships were not capable of this due to their low speed, those progress made it possible for battleships, thereby completely displacing battleships from the fleet.
          1. Vladimir_2U
            Vladimir_2U April 14 2021 16: 03
            0
            Quote: max702
            Battleships are ships for tactical reception "battle in line" what the author was talking about and why you drag battleships here it is not clear, a battleship is a battle cruiser
            Nichrome you are a pioneer, no words.
      2. TermNachTer
        TermNachTer April 14 2021 11: 58
        +7
        Squadron battleships were reclassified as battleships in 1907, and before that, they were EBRs and such a classification was adopted throughout the world.
        1. Vladimir_2U
          Vladimir_2U April 14 2021 16: 05
          0
          Quote: TermNachTER
          Squadron battleships reclassified as battleships

          You do not understand anything and are behind progress! laughing
          Quote: max702
          Battleships are ships for tactical reception "battle in line" what the author was talking about and why you are bringing battleships here, it is not clear, a battleship is a battle cruiser ... ...
          1. TermNachTer
            TermNachTer April 26 2021 12: 30
            +1
            You can also build Yal - 6 into a "battle line", so it won't become a battleship)))
            1. Vladimir_2U
              Vladimir_2U April 26 2021 15: 28
              0
              Quote: TermNachTER
              You can also build Yal - 6 into a "battle line", so it won't become a battleship)))
              Well, not a battleship, a battle cruiser, it doesn't matter! Progress is like that! laughing
  8. Doctor
    Doctor April 14 2021 11: 38
    -3
    How it all fits in one head is unclear.
    I will continue with another commonplace. This has been forgotten many times in the history of Russia. And built a fleet for the sake of the fleet. And ships. Because the Germans (British, Americans) have such.


    And right there:
    1. To preserve the aircraft carrier component at all costs. For this, the "Kuznetsov" is suitable as a combat training ship, especially since there are no options.

    I personally do not see the escort problem - it is necessary to complete the "Nakhimov" and modernize the "Petra".
    1. antivirus
      antivirus April 14 2021 16: 55
      0
      the riddle must remain always and forever .....................................
  9. Niko
    Niko April 14 2021 11: 41
    +7
    Examples, of course, are stretched ... Russian-Japanese for example: "The fleet did not fulfill its tasks, despite the invested funds," If you look very narrowly, but for global examples, this is not suitable. In the Russian-Japanese fleet, it fully completed all the tasks and justified all the huge funds invested in it, it was just the JAPANESE fleet.
  10. jonht
    jonht April 14 2021 11: 56
    +5
    I will not give exact data now, but most of the merchant ships of our shipowners sail under the flags of offshore countries, the fishing fleet is still large enough for our fishermen, but only there is almost nothing to catch in the Atlantic, ships from there are ferried from there to the Far East. And in the Far East, too, there are not so many FBG.
    We have a very long sea border, and there are unmeasured tervods, so we have to guard, escort and control.
    For 20 years, our Navy has hardly shone in the world's oceans, and this is not just going out of the bay and lafa, it is navigation, it is quite lively traffic on the main routes, it is the climatic and hydrological features of various regions of the world ocean. And most importantly, this is the invaluable experience of the crews. hi
    1. lucul
      lucul April 14 2021 12: 33
      +3
      but most of our shipowners' merchant ships sail under the flags of offshore countries,

      Well, look - the other day they introduced double taxation with Holland (that is, their 3% + our 15%), and this is 330 billion rubles now annually in the treasury. So it is with offshore flags - you need to take this money for yourself.
  11. Pavel57
    Pavel57 April 14 2021 12: 21
    +2
    1. Protecting its coastline and its maritime trade and fisheries.

    With this, we are still bad.
  12. Boa kaa
    Boa kaa April 14 2021 12: 38
    +2
    What can I say? Without speculation, just under Phil (like an amateur boots), but essentially true. There are tolerances, but there is nothing disgusting anti-naval. As they say - simple, but tasteful.
    Now about his own, about the naval.
    1. The fleet is needed. And you need to build it balanced in the types of forces and the number of ships. Approximately the way our scientists of the Soviet era saw it:

    2. The author is wrong in defining the tasks of the fleet.
    The very first task is the destruction of administrative and industrial facilities on enemy territory;
    The second is the destruction of SSBNs and carriers of enemy nuclear weapons ... and then you can write everything that you remember, right up to the landing of the DRG on the enemy's coast ...
    3. The author somehow crookedly recalls the "cover of the NSNF" by the forces of the fleet. The only question is: is the NSNF themselves a land cart or does it have something to do with the fleet?
    4. I really liked that Roman understands that
    not having their own air force overhead, and you will not go out to sea - they will drown like kittens.
    ... That's just about the "Aviki" screwed up on the need to save Kuzya and build 1-2 light AVMs ... so that superior forces of the Naglo-Saxons would kick them at the edge of the DMZ!
    And we need a minimum of "middle peasants", 60-70 thousand. Which and not especially "pull the pocket" and in the face impudently snitch on the face "on the first number"! But this is not now.
    Now we need to finish building Boriki. Put the Laika-VMF on a chain, ride the Kalina. Take an excursion to "Belgorod" and "Khabarovsk" ... at the same time to visit "Velikiye Luki" and "Kronstadt", attach AIP to them as a gift ... again, as an option, put flint or magnesium batteries on them ...
    This is how I see the nearest future.
    AHA.
    1. EvilLion
      EvilLion April 15 2021 08: 17
      0
      The very first task is the destruction of administrative and industrial facilities on enemy territory;


      Elementary is done by missiles and aircraft. Why the fleet itself is becoming more and more unnecessary.
      1. Boa kaa
        Boa kaa April 15 2021 14: 39
        0
        Quote: EvilLion
        Elementary is done by missiles and aircraft. Why the fleet itself is becoming more and more unnecessary.

        Of course, you can crush hedgehogs with your bare butt ...
        But the boot is much better.
        Aviation will not break through the boundaries of the MRO at the range of the mission. Only through the SLO ... But this is not a fact either.
        Land-based ICBMs are undeniably a very strong argument. But even the orbital complexes did not provide time pressure for the US leadership ...
        But the start of the SLBM or the approach of the NPA very much drives the leadership of NATA (and the Yankees too) into a stupor from the realization that there is no more time ...
        So, "do not rush to the Lord to visit until they call!" (from)
        PS With such "valuable" thoughts, you should not while away the time on the site, but in the General Staff of the RF Armed Forces you need to be the main one on these, like him, on irrational proposals!
        AHA.
  13. Scharnhorst
    Scharnhorst April 14 2021 13: 35
    +5
    Save the carrier component at all costs. At the same time, he needs a replacement - one, maximum two aircraft carriers, preferably light ones. We will burst out from more, we will not pull

    The author openly promotes the philosophy of effective managers. Realizing the need to replace Kuznetsov (VI 56 kt), he suggests choosing two lungs (VI 70-38 kt) instead of a full-fledged AV (VI 45 kt +). Iron logic - "less is more"! Only he does not understand that this path does not lead to the preservation of the aircraft carrier component, but to its degradation. As there is no experience in building a full-fledged aircraft carrier, so it will not appear until the replacement of light ones. Where is the development?
    I personally do not see the escort problem - it is necessary to complete the "Nakhimov" and modernize the "Petra". "Atlanta", of course, are already finalizing their

    I am translating it from a thought into an effective manager. "Atlanteans are scrapped, but the TAKRs will die themselves. Don't mention the construction of new and modernization of old cruisers in Russia. Toxic topic. The reader will make the correct conclusion about development or degradation ...
    NSNF is being built here. For me, this is even too much. better more complexes on land and fewer at sea

    The "love" of effective managers for the Russian fleet is visible without a microscope, especially for its most expensive and high-tech component! Just expensive - nothing personal!
    Destroyers? But no. Again, no money, no technology for Leaders. It remains to be hoped that the super-Gorshkovs will be released by the shipbuilders.

    This is almost personal (your humble servant considers super-Gorshkovs or 22350M to be bad destroyers and bad frigates). But back to the needs of the fleet. Without hesitation, the author of the article under the bombastic title "Criteria for the effectiveness of the Navy"in plain text, in black and white, proclaims the main criterion of efficiency: no money, no technology!
    And the main thing. In order for a military fleet to be needed not for parades and demonstrations of superpower, a merchant fleet is needed, a fishing fleet

    As V.I. Lenin used to say - this is an archetypal piece! I just dissect this phrase like Michelangelo, cut off everything superfluous and pompous, blow off the touch of liberal objectivity and rub it with alcohol as it should be on the regulations:
    In order for a military fleet to be needed, you need a merchant fleet, a fishing fleet
    The style is very similar to the Peter's Testaments, but the Great Emperor chopped off such effective managers ...
    1. EvilLion
      EvilLion April 15 2021 08: 20
      +1
      The Great Emperor got into the war with Sweden and the construction of Petersburg only in order to somehow integrate into world trade through the Baltic, and not sit in a bear's corner while civilization develops. True, after the death of Peter, the navy somehow immediately decayed and almost died, and then this swing continued all the time.
  14. smaug78
    smaug78 April 14 2021 13: 58
    -1
    An example of this approach is Russia in 1904-1905. With a huge fleet of battleships, a horde of cruisers, and a flock of destroyers, the Russian Imperial Navy did not fulfill a single task. The enemy carried out amphibious operations, disrupted our communications, was able to defend its territory and did not perceive our fleet as a deterrent.
    Author, you have a bad mark in history ...
    1. EvilLion
      EvilLion April 15 2021 08: 21
      +1
      Russian troops took Tokyo? Do not remember that. I only remember the bul-bul at Tsushima and in a number of smaller batches.
      1. smaug78
        smaug78 April 15 2021 08: 26
        0
        У
        Quote: EvilLion
        Russian troops took Tokyo?

        The Russian imperial fleet did not seem to have such a task, and its capture of Tokyo is very interesting ...
  15. Vladimir1155
    Vladimir1155 April 14 2021 15: 37
    -2
    everything is correct except that we don’t need cruisers udk aircraft carriers and battleships from the word completely ... old cruisers reach and we will only switch to small ASW frigates and in small numbers, the main thing is to develop submarines and coastal aviation
  16. xomaNN
    xomaNN April 14 2021 15: 45
    +3
    Gritting teeth and swearing, we must continue to pull the fleet as a whole out of the quagmire of the 90s - early XNUMXs. And with private, in those troubled years, stolen from the post-USSR shipyards, the orders of the military-industrial complex are stricter. Money - lines - quality!
  17. clerk
    clerk April 15 2021 13: 43
    +1
    hmm .... Explanatory article - with some minor adjustments I will subscribe under each word
  18. VLADIMIR VLADIVOSTOK
    VLADIMIR VLADIVOSTOK April 17 2021 15: 56
    0
    It's not just the fleet, but those who command it! 1904 m there was only one Makarov and then he died! Whom to command?