Military Review

Small fleet and big politics

385

“The aircraft carriers would not harm us, but I believe that this is not a priority task for Russia. The carrier strike force includes the aircraft carrier itself, the carrier ship of the nuclear weapons, about 12 ships of close escort of an aircraft carrier, ships of an anti-missile barrier, two or three submarines and an anti-submarine Aviation... That is, we are talking not only about the billions spent on the ship itself, but also about the billions spent on providing it. "


- V.P. Valuev, former commander of the Baltic fleet RF.

Perhaps it would be quite reasonable to begin this article with the words of a Russian naval commander, who once again confirms the long-known truth: the fleet is expensive.

The carrier fleet is very expensive.

Of course, there are alternative points of view that offer "aircraft carriers for the poor": the construction of springboard aircraft carriers of small displacement, the use of obviously outdated aircraft in the form of the MiG-29K, the formation of strike groups around multipurpose frigates, etc.

The main thesis of these ideas is built, however, around a completely different idea - the postulate that the fleet is supposedly the solution to most of the problems of Russian foreign policy.

In this article, I propose to try to understand how correct and fair this point of view is.

Fleet and politics. Politics and navy


Of course, we will have to start by saying that such an overarching topic is not well suited to a conversation within the framework of a single article. We will try to consider the problematics of the issue as briefly and succinctly as possible, but, alas, this will have to be done without the desired details.

Extremely often we come across statements on the pages of the Military Review, which say that the fleet is an independent, almost supranational unit, capable of influencing the general welfare of the state. Strike groups of warships are called the conductor of state interests, thereby heating up the delusions of gullible readers, already suffering from a poor understanding of the realities of modern interstate confrontations.

The arguments are so simple and clear - give the country ships, and the ships will give it power ...

Simple. Understandable. Are wrong.

Unfortunately, international politics has long ceased to be a place for the application of simple and understandable solutions. For example, if for Peter the Great the military fleet, as a factor, in itself was a huge strategic advantage, then in our time, to achieve his goals, Peter Alekseevich would have to use such a huge arsenal of diplomatic, political, economic and cultural means of influence that the strike groups of ships against their background, they would be practically lost, becoming almost insignificant.

The reality around us is such that the very concept "war" practically died as an independent factor in international politics. Trends are changing rapidly. And to argue that increasing military power is tantamount to achieving a strategic advantage is a dangerous delusion.

The reliance on historical precedents - we live in an unprecedented era military-civil mergerwhich has nothing to do even with the Cold War. In such conditions, references to past experience can become a factor of strategic lag, and then defeat.

Let's say we have an example of the People's Republic of China. It, in turn, has a very impressive modern navy, surpassing the size and power of that of another Chinese republic, better known to us as Taiwan.

If we take the situation out of context, considering it exclusively from the point of view of naval confrontation (this is the technique, unfortunately, used by the authors of the Military Review, who are actively lobbying the interests of the Navy), then it becomes obvious: a strong PRC can crush rebellious Taiwan in an instant.

In the end, what prevents a country that has the second navy in the world and an impressive nuclear arsenal against a state that is inferior to it in absolutely everything from the implementation of such a scenario?

Fortunately for Taiwan (and unfortunately for shipbuilding lobbyists), world politics does not work in a vacuum. There are a number of strategic factors that prevent Beijing from realizing a military scenario - accordingly, the fleet and the armed forces as a whole are not independent actors that can pursue state policy.

The situation looks similar for the United States - the world's first naval power, the world's first economy, the owner of one of the largest nuclear arsenals for some reason cannot simply assemble hundreds of its warships and swiftly defeat the PRC. Instead, the United States and its allies are waging hybrid wars with Beijing and its satellites in faraway Africa, Central and Central Asia, and the Middle East.

In battle, time after time, it is not armadas of missile destroyers and mighty aircraft carriers that converge, but hastily trained militants in pickup trucks, special operations forces and inexpensive drones. And the main war is being waged in the offices of analysts, macro-strategists, diplomats, anthropologists, orientalists and economists who are scrupulously working to expand the state's sphere of influence through the use of so-called "smart power." How will the outcome of this confrontation be decided? And will there be, in general, a place for the naval forces in it? These are questions, as it is easy to understand, with an unknown answer.


This is what the "musculature" of Western countries looks like for a showdown on the periphery. Light helicopters, piston planes, small UAVs and military retirees are the key to success and zero losses among their armed forces. Photo source: bykvu.com

Only one thing can be said for sure - the fleet, even in the confrontation between two superpowers dependent on sea communications, occupies, at best, secondary positions.

Thus, the very fact that we have extremely powerful armed forces or the fleet in isolation is not a strategic factor that can turn the situation in favor of a stronger side. Just as the presence of muscles and physical fitness does not allow us to solve all everyday issues through the use of physical force or blackmail, so military power on the scale of international politics does not allow us to use it against any rival.

As mentioned above, the concept of "war" itself carries less and less of the old meaning. Frankly speaking, even professionals cannot keep up with the current trends - only in the last decade have at least several terms denoting interstate confrontations changed.

Of the most complete and well-established designations for war in recent years, there is a wonderful term "Systemic competition".

Undoubtedly, you will ask a reasonable question - why has war ceased to be an independent act of state activity, if military operations are taking place everywhere in the world?

Well, let's try to figure it out.

So, the first thing we need to know is that the line between war, politics and economics in the modern world is simply blurred. As a good example, we can take the actions of the Turkish Republic on the territory of Syria (they are most fully reflected in the article "The steel grip of" soft power ": Turkey in Syria").

As we can easily understand, Ankara's stunning success is explained precisely by the understanding of modern realities - for example, the occupied territories of the SAR were quickly incorporated into the economic life of Turkey. The actions of the Turkish military, analysts, economists, businessmen and workers of humanitarian organizations appear before us as a single and monolithic system that was able to curb nearly 5 million refugees, turning them into a source of new resources.

Achievements of the army, administrative apparatus and commercial structures absolutely inseparable - they support and reinforce each other, forming the very systemic competition that forces the adversary to act on the humanitarian, political, economic, and only last but not least on the military fronts of state activity (hostilities constitute a rather small part of the confrontation itself - for example, the same Syria and In Turkey, we can say that the outbreak of clashes lasted only a few weeks, and, for example, humanitarian operations and outreach to the population will last for years: and they will ultimately be the determining factors of achievement).

However, it should be said that in the modern world even such powerful powers as the United States and China are striving to minimize direct military intervention. Most of the "contact battles" are provided by cheap "cannon fodder" in the form of mercenaries, gangs of militants, terrorist organizations, etc.

After the defeat of the United States in the battle of Mogadishu (1993), all countries made the appropriate conclusions: the presence of their own troops must be reduced.

For example, China secures its interests on logistics routes with the help of the Anglo-American PMC Frontier Services Group (FSG). The organization, founded by the infamous Eric Prince, has two bases of operations in Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region and Yunnan Province in China. The main task of PMC FSG is reconnaissance, security and logistics of the Great Silk Road, which also runs through Russia.

Cheap. Profitable. Practical.

Is the fleet a salvation for Russia?


Well, back to our Fatherland.

I propose to consider the situation as objectively as possible. What is the armed forces (which includes the navy)? It is a policy tool. What is politics? This is the quintessence of economics. What is of paramount importance to realizing economic potential?

Logistics. Infrastructure. Transport communications.

Below you can find a very interesting infographic presented by Rosstat.


Photo source: rosstat.gov

What do you see? The share of sea freight in our country (this, by the way, includes indicators of import and export) is inferior even to the share of automobiles! If we disregard the pipeline transportation of oil and gas from the statistics, it becomes obvious how important railways are for Russia.


Photo source: rosstat.gov

Yes, indeed, friends, land powers do not exist - there are only powers, whose communications are tied to land, not sea routes of communication.

The words about the huge maritime borders of our Motherland sound extremely beautiful, while the only maritime transport artery controlled by Russia and at least some significant maritime transport artery is the Northern Sea Route.

Despite numerous enthusiastic statements, the NSR will never be able to become even a remote alternative to, for example, the Suez Canal. Most of its route runs through uninhabited territories where there are no deep-water ports, but most importantly, container ships with a capacity of more than 4500 TEU (Twenty Foot Equivalent Unit is a conventional unit of measurement of the capacity of freight vehicles. It is often used to describe the capacity of container ships and container ships). Based on the volume of a 20-foot (6,1 m) intermodal ISO container), while in the world the most common type of container ships is the so-called "Panamax class" with a capacity of 5000 to 12000 TEU.

Moreover, the temperature regime and harsh conditions of the North do not allow for the transportation of a large range of goods. As part of the current economic activity, the NSR does not require any significant investments and special protection - the country's needs have already been fully satisfied.

At its peak in 2020, transportation on the Transsib increased by 15%. In this regard, the Baikal-Amur Mainline was also actively involved, the construction of the second branch of which is going on right now.

So, for the sake of protecting how great sea lanes does Russia need to sacrifice its real interests and build an even larger navy, which in fact has nothing to defend?

This explains the historical experience of our country: mind you, a very interesting fact - with any significant changes (revolution, change of power, etc.), it was the fleet that was the first to fall under the knife. At the heart of this lies precisely its artificiality within the framework of the country's economic life - the state over and over again builds the Navy in order to satisfy political ambitions and prestige, but in fact the fleet has nothing to justify its existence with.

The above statistics of cargo transportation only once again confirms this long-known truth.

If there are no economic interests, then there is nothing to defend.

Thus, the Soviet Navy was actively built in the name of promoting Soviet interests by strengthening the military presence. As practice has shown, this approach turned out to be absolutely ineffective: despite the growth of the Union's naval power by the 80s, the Soviet zone of influence in the world was only rapidly narrowing, collapsing on the verge of extinction.

In spite of our main rival, the United States, actively developed primarily economic ties, thereby strengthening its position and importance. The United States sought to provide a military presence with a network of bases, which, in turn, also contributed to the expansion of economic interaction with satellites.

The fleet and powerful American aircraft carriers in this scheme played the role of a means increasing influence in dangerous directions, but by no means not a tool to promote it.

The principle of reasonable sufficiency


In this section, I propose to resort to the experience of a different, but strangely similar to our country.

To the experience of Israel.

Despite the likely outrage, I explain that Israel, like Russia, is surrounded by rather unfriendly neighbors and throughout its existence was forced to actively fight for its existence. The naval war did not stand aside either - the Jewish state was forced to confront its enemies on the water.

Among other things, Israel actively claims at least regional leadership (like our country) - and successfully copes with this, having extremely modest demographic, economic, military and natural resources.

Of course, this reasoning will be distorted by the territorial scale of our countries, but the principle is quite clear: Israel, despite its ambitions and successes, does not run to build a new "Invincible Armada". The country's economic life and the military threat to its existence lie precisely on land, and Israeli strategists competently prioritize: aviation and nuclear weapons, missile defense, ground forces, intelligence and analytical structures, logistic units, and only then, somewhere at the end of the list is fleet.

A fleet that is enough to defend its own coast - and for everything else, there is missile weapons and aircraft.


Squadrons of warships are always impressive, but their presence alone does not provide any effective leverage for political pressure. It is impossible to replace the entire system with only one of its components. Photo source: US Navy

At the same time, Israel cannot be called a small political figure - for example, it is noteworthy that the new head of the Pentagon made his first visit after accepting powers to Tel Aviv, and only then to London, Berlin, and so on.

Is the navy so important for a successful policy in the near and far abroad? Or is this just one factor that is not a prerequisite for success?

Fleet is not the main thing


As many have already understood, the existence of the fleet lies primarily in the plane of economic benefits.

Of course, it would be possible to actively invest in the construction of an analogue of the Soviet Navy, but at the current moment in time this does not bear absolutely any expediency.

First, as mentioned above, Russia does not have any significant sea communications, for the protection of which an aircraft carrier military fleet would be required.

Secondly, all the current challenges and problems of Russia lie near our land borders - with the US withdrawal from Afghanistan, the danger of "inflammation" of Central and Central Asia, which has already shown itself in the course of clashes on the Tajik-Kyrgyz border set on edge for Ukraine and the NATO bloc.

Thirdly, the arsenal of tools for promoting international influence in the era of "military-civil merger" has expanded significantly and requires a much more subtle approach, in which the presence of armada of destroyers of missile defense is not a prerequisite.

Fourth, paradoxically, the naval threat to Russia is practically absent: the United States and Great Britain are actively engaged in containing China and plan to keep the main detachment of forces in the Indo-Pacific region, Africa and the Middle East. For our country, there are already more than enough threats from land - both from the European and Chinese borders.

For the current tasks of ensuring defense capabilities, first of all, a developed naval aviation, a well-prepared military infrastructure and an extensive network of reconnaissance satellites are needed.

Accordingly, the investments of our country should lie primarily in the development of the aviation and missile industries (it is worth noting that the requirements to build aircraft carriers in the absence of modern civilian transport and passenger aircraft are sabotage), astronautics, independent analytical structures, military and civil infrastructure. It is necessary to invest in creating a full-scale government strategy both for working with your country and for developing reliable international relations with others.

Russia needs to keep up with the times and with the real, true needs of the country - and the rhetoric of rabid militarists who dream of turning the country into a giant North Korea with an aircraft carrier fleet is openly contrary to common sense.

Big politics does not require big fleet, friends.

Big politics requires a lot of intelligence.
Author:
Photos used:
US Navy rosstat.gov bykvu.com
Articles from this series:
Russian Navy - Execution Cannot Be Pardoned?
Inconvenient questions for supporters of the aircraft carrier lobby
Naval dramas: about politics, war and expediency
385 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Thrifty
    Thrifty 6 May 2021 04: 47
    +17
    You pulled the cat by the mustache, the author! The same Yankees have enough fleet both for us and for China! The article simply justifies the unwillingness to create a real Navy for Russia, and not a collection of combat boats and a few ships.
    1. Pessimist22
      Pessimist22 6 May 2021 05: 25
      -7
      He also says the Jews do not have a large fleet, but they are so great, they are controlled from the White House smile
    2. saigon
      saigon 6 May 2021 05: 25
      +20
      Sorry, but creating a fleet for the sake of building it is not wise!
      There is no main thing, there is no understanding for WHAT we need the fleet, and after defining the political task for the fleet, we have to think about what kind of fleet is needed to solve it.
      So far, no clear concept of the use of the fleet and for what tasks has been met.
      There is another not obvious problem for all fleets, different ships are needed, the Baltic and the Black Sea are different opponents (potential) and one must be aware that the Northern Fleet needs ships that are, say, different in performance characteristics from the Pacific Fleet.
      1. bayard
        bayard 6 May 2021 08: 47
        +19
        Quote: saigon
        Sorry, but creating a fleet for the sake of building it is not wise!

        The fleet in Russia (throughout its history) was created out of need. Or rather, according to needs. Both the security of the state from maritime directions, and to ensure the safety and protection of shipping (merchant fleet).
        Own.
        So at the turn of the last century and the century before last, when the Republic of Ingushetia got access and possessions in the "warm seas" in the Far East, the question of organizing trade through its (!) Ports in that region immediately arose. And that is why, it was then that there was a distortion in the construction of the CIVIL \ trade \ commercial infrastructure in that region, to the detriment of the military construction.
        Namely, the commercial port city Dalniy (now Chinese Dalian) was built from scratch. With all the infrastructure and amenities for a large sea trade.
        But with the military infrastructure there and then ... they were in no hurry.
        After all, RI is so strong and so powerful ... it has such a powerful land army ... Who dares?
        In general, they treated the case exactly as the author suggests.
        And got a war with a third-rate regional state ...
        And they lost it with a bang.
        And why ?
        Continental thinking and neglect of the Navy.
        In everything.
        In military thought, personnel training, strategic planning for the development of the fleet ... In leisurely ... In neglect of a spoon for dinner ...
        The spoon was needed just for dinner.
        Not by 1905-1906. , and by the time our regional adversary completes its shipbuilding program and is READY for war.
        That is, the Far East needed a fleet by the middle of 1903.
        But he was not there.
        There was only a hodgepodge of the first squadron.
        But this is the past.
        What is the author's craftiness?
        Understatement of the role of maritime trade today and in the past.
        If the sea trade of modern Russia is carried out through the ports of neighboring states, and from there by rail and road - throughout Bezkraine.
        For example, the Soviet Navy was built in the post-war years at a catching pace, behind the merchant and fishing fleet.
        That was the so-called. The "Gorshkov Doctrine" that for every warship laid down in the USSR, the country should ALREADY have built up to a dozen vessels for commercial, fishing, passenger and economic purposes. And in the USSR this rule was observed - the Soviet fishing fleet was perhaps the largest in the world, the merchant fleet was one of the largest.
        The navy had someone and what to guard, there was where to get a job for the officers and sailors being transferred to the reserve, there was where to mobilize, if necessary, the court and trained sailors ...
        What today ?
        And today, almost the entire commercial fleet of our oligarchs has offshore registration ...
        And it does not bring ANY benefit and profit to the state.
        And you cannot mobilize such ships for military needs ...
        But.
        But today our Arctic is developing ... in terms of production and export of hydrocarbons.
        And as a rule to external markets.
        And by no means through pipes, but completely ice-class gas carriers and tankers.
        For the construction of such specific ships, a superyard is being completed in Bolshoy Kamen ... another one, no less grandiose, is being built on the Kola Peninsula (Kola shipyard), a large batch of gas carriers has been ordered in Korea ...
        In terms of the construction of dozens - hundreds of commercial ships at these enterprises, to serve Arctic projects.
        And these vessels will transport these hydrocarbons not only to Europe, but also to India, China, Southeast Asia ... And it is to ensure the safety of such traffic that our naval base is being built (now the truth is already in question) in Sudan.
        And you thought why such a "whim" arose?
        And before that, our ships will have to go around the whole of Europe ... smile , which is now so "friendly and well-disposed" to us.
        And in the eastern direction of the NSR - the Bering Strait ... And there is Alaska ... the United States is our sworn and unchanging "partners" ...
        Do you think we will have problems with such sea trade if we do not have a Fleet?
        And the Russian Federation also came out on top in the world in grain trading ...
        And he also needs to be transported. Grain carriers ...
        And the security of such trade is also needed.
        And then there is Venezuela. Of course, it is far away, but the interests of the domestic business there are considerable - after all, the second largest country in the world in terms of oil reserves. And we lent a lot of it ... And the oil was deflated to our refineries in India from there - it is also necessary ...
        And all this requires the safety of navigation.
        Diplomacy is also useful here, but ... without the presence of a forceful argument, none of the smartest arguments (and the author believes that it is intelligence that is lacking ... by the way, yes - it is always not enough) by our sworn partners will not be taken into account.
        And who needs Russia not to have a fleet?
        And just when the main curse of our shipbuilding is overcome with difficulty - ship engine building. There are turbines, the first travel gearboxes have already been delivered to the customer ... so you look, the industry will begin to rhythmically issue ships to the Fleet.
        Because this is not a whim.
        This is an objective need and necessity.
        Quote: saigon
        and we must be aware that the Northern Fleet needs ships, let's say, excellent in performance characteristics from the Pacific Fleet

        The climatic conditions in the regions of Kamchatka, Chukotka and the Sea of ​​Okhotsk are in no way milder than those of the Barents Sea. And sometimes - in winter, our Black Sea freezes ... wink
        We have a northern country. But our ships sometimes have to serve in the equator.
        And this must be taken into account when designing ships.
        1. saigon
          saigon 6 May 2021 09: 49
          +6
          Before the war with Japan, in addition to the fleet, there were also such trifles of (continental) thinking as the absence of a railway communication of the theater of operations with Russia.
          Moreover, in the upper strata of the government, there was an ease of thinking and a lack of coordination of actions.
          1. bayard
            bayard 6 May 2021 12: 17
            +10
            The railway service on the eve of the RYA, just, was given great importance - the Trans-Siberian railway was built in a record 8 years. But they did not have time anyway - the Circum-Baikal Railway was completed in 1905.
            And no one could have done it faster.
            But building the RI ships for the Pacific Fleet by 1903 (and this was possible by placing orders abroad), everything would have gone differently. By giving the enemy the initiative in the war at sea, the outcome of the war was a foregone conclusion.
            But the whole venture with the base in Port Arthur, the lease of the Liaodong Peninsula and the construction of the CER was not at all for the sake of war and parade, but for the sake of reaching the borders of the Empire to warm ice-free ports, the fertile lands of Manchuria and TRADE.
            And the Navy had to ensure the safety of this venture.
            But to build on time and with the proper quality to prepare the ships and bases ... they simply did not have time. The money was primarily spent on the construction of a commercial port and the city of Dalniy.
            1. saigon
              saigon 6 May 2021 12: 46
              +7
              Reading Kuropatkin's memoirs explains very, very much, no one prepared for the war in the Far East, alas, they got into the war like into a drunken fight.
              There are also about 8 pairs of trains a day, there is a mob stocks in the theater of operations, there are many things about shells that are usually not talked about.
              The outcome of the war was decided, alas, in the capital. the army was ready to continue fighting, and finally there was superiority in the number of bayonets and equipment, the decline of the Japanese spirit and the lack of reserves they felt fat.
              So there was a psychological breakdown of the political leadership, but not the army.
              1. bayard
                bayard 6 May 2021 13: 54
                +9
                That's right.
                But what could be expected from the king, who on the very eve of the war said "There will be no war with Japan, because I do not want that ...".
                But I had to through the "unwilling".
                And they refused to continue the war precisely because ... there was no fleet left at ALL. Therefore, in principle, it was possible to recapture Port Arthur and the Liaodong Peninsula from the land ... But just for what?
                If dominance of the sea remained with Japan?
                Defeating the Japanese ground army would, of course, be highly desirable ... But the Japanese had already captured half of Sakhalin by that time, and were moving inland very quickly.
                And they would have taken our Kamchatka with their landings, without any problems.
                Because WE ALREADY DIDN'T HAVE A FLEET.
                So they hurried to conclude an agreement.
                ... And so ... to chase the samurai with an "iron broom" through the hills of Manchuria ... what ... it would be nice.
                So Kolya didn't break down then. He broke down when he did not give money for normal shells for the fleet. When he decided to "support a domestic manufacturer" by ordering @ yotsky "Diana", absurd raiders, and at the same time twisted Krump's hands at the price for his excellent "Retvizan" ... which he was ready to build at least 4 pieces by the deadline.
                For 8 million rubles he scrambled "Retvizana", while domestic "Borodintsy" cost about 15 million !!!
                ... Refused from Italian cruisers - "We don't need such ships" ... But the Japanese were very useful.
                There is no worse punishment for a country than a feeble-minded person on its throne.
                1. Dart2027
                  Dart2027 6 May 2021 15: 12
                  -3
                  Quote: bayard
                  And they refused to continue the war precisely because ... there was no fleet left at ALL. Therefore, in principle, it was possible to recapture Port Arthur and the Liaodong Peninsula from the land ... But just for what?
                  If dominance of the sea remained with Japan?

                  And what would Japan do with him if she was knocked out of the mainland?
                  The war was stopped because of the "heroes of the revolutionaries" who forced the government to switch to internal problems.
                  1. bayard
                    bayard 6 May 2021 15: 35
                    +5
                    And the revolutionaries also played their part.
                    But purely military reasons were precisely in the fact that we could not defend Sakhalin and Kamchatka. Therefore, we hurried up with the negotiations.
                    And even after defeating the Japanese and throwing them out of Korea and Liaodong, we would not be able to return our Sakhalin and Kamchatka. For this, a fleet was needed. Yes, and the Japanese fleet would not give us rest, making regular shelling raids on our coastal cities. You would have to exchange your territory for Korean and Chinese ... and build a fleet again ... Having lost a large and better part of the sailors ... not having naval commanders ...
                    And in the country went an avalanche of revolutionary riots ...
                    So there were many reasons. And in this you are right.
                    1. Dart2027
                      Dart2027 6 May 2021 16: 22
                      -2
                      Quote: bayard
                      I would have to exchange my territory for Korean and Chinese ...

                      This is what I mean - and without the fleet it was really possible to bring the war to a draw, although, of course, more could have been achieved with it.
                    2. andybuts
                      andybuts 12 May 2021 19: 03
                      +1
                      Don't touch the revolutionaries! Leave all these crazy tales about the revolution for Japanese money for federal channels, liberal bloggers and other conspiracy theorists (this is the same nonsense as about the October Revolution of 1917 with German money (or like Starikov had with English money). Some money from the Japanese maybe there were, but a revolution needs REVOLUTIONARY MASSES and a REVOLUTIONARY SITUATION, and you can't buy them for any money. Life was bad in Russia, which we lost. And this is above all. And what flared up during the ROE is just a consequence If there were no RJV, the first revolution would have occurred later, there would have been no WWI, then sooner or later conditions would have developed for a socialist revolution, because the life of ordinary people was getting worse, and there is nothing to improve it At the head were the interests of the court, the nobility and the merchants with industrialists (by the way, it was the revolution of 1905-1907 that made life easier for the peasants, when, as a result of it, redemption payments were canceled. mly).
                      Instead of developing the country, RI and its business circles climbed behind their colonies. And got in the teeth. Only for what? And how did this Manchuria come in handy for us in the end? Did we heal very well after we got there? No, they went there for the interests of merchants and industrialists. And ordinary people, soldiers and sailors, for whose families there was never any effect from these colonies, paid with blood for business interests, and on taxes collected from the people. Maybe they learned a lesson and made conclusions at the beginning of the twentieth century? How did they do it, climbed into the First World War to ensure the export of grain from the country, where every 7-8 years there was a famine, leading to the death of up to 1 million inhabitants. And the revolutionaries are to blame, you see, not patriots.
                      And now the aircraft carrier lobby justifies everything with business interests and trade, confusing the interests of Russia (I mean its inhabitants, and not the so-called “elite”, which in the majority, in theory, would be more correctly called “waste of Russia”). So the question “how will we export our exports?” Comes through, to ensure its export and profit corporations, it is proposed to send the treasury to the fleet instead of education and health care, social projects and other expenses that ensure the development of human potential. Well, the result will be the same as 100 years ago.
                      Given that, as at the beginning of the twentieth century, the country primarily needs internal development, raising science and production, education and health care, living standards and improving demographic indicators. And aircraft carriers will not help here.
                      1. Dart2027
                        Dart2027 12 May 2021 19: 43
                        0
                        Quote: andybuts
                        Don't touch the revolutionaries!

                        True eyes hurts?
                      2. andybuts
                        andybuts 13 May 2021 12: 33
                        0
                        True eyes hurts?


                        really what?
                      3. Dart2027
                        Dart2027 13 May 2021 19: 23
                        0
                        Quote: andybuts
                        really what

                        About the fact that all revolutionaries have to live on something, and since they do not work, someone pays them money.
                  2. bayard
                    bayard 12 May 2021 22: 12
                    0
                    Horses mingled in a heap ... people ...
                    And volleys of a thousand guns. lol
                    At the turn of the last century and the century before last, the task was to connect the eastern borders of the Empire with its European part. In order to build an economic base under this "Movement to the East" ... Yes, yes, it was them - merchants, traders, businessmen, industrialists. But the Russian lands in the Far East were not suitable for agriculture (except for Dauria), and behind the Amur lay half-empty Manchuria (the Chinese settled there reluctantly). The port of Vladivostok froze in winter and therefore our ships spent the winter in Nagasaki.
                    And then - the Japan-China War, which China blew out with a bang. But he was saved by Russia and Germany and France who joined her. For this, RI received on lease Port Arthur as a naval base, the Liaodong Peninsula and the right to build the Chinese Eastern Railway with the alienation of land for 5 km. to the right and to the left of the railway track (only 10 km. lane along the entire road network). So Russia finally got an ice-free port for trade (the city of Dalniy built by us) and an ice-free naval base. And the possibility of settling on the lands along the CER of Russian peasants and retired soldiers.
                    Is it bad?
                    Of course not.
                    The CER was generally built on contributions from the merchants. But it was also a strategic road.
                    Was the benefit of trade with China ... in China itself?
                    It certainly was, and very large.
                    Was due attention paid to security and military development in Liaodong and Manchuria?
                    NOT !

                    Did Japanese intelligence finance the revolutionary movement in Russia?
                    Yes .
                    Did the Bolsheviks receive money and weapons from the Japanese?
                    Probably no . It was not the largest and far from the most influential party - the Japanese did not appreciate it. But Lenin wanted to receive these grants and set tasks for his emissaries. Letters have survived. But apparently he did not succeed.

                    But I was not going to and I am not going to discuss the issues of the 1905-07 revolution. We discussed the role of the Navy in that war.
                    And that it was precisely his absolute unpreparedness - neither in composition, nor in quality, nor in quantity ... that led to the devastating defeat of the Republic of Ingushetia from a third-rate country at that time.
                  3. andybuts
                    andybuts 13 May 2021 13: 33
                    0
                    Did Japanese intelligence finance the revolutionary movement in Russia?
                    Yes .


                    It doesn't matter who financed, the point is that there were serious unresolved problems that the authorities were not going to solve. So it turned into a revolution. And superimposed on the "small victorious".

                    Quote: bayard
                    Was due attention paid to security and military development in Liaodong and Manchuria?
                    NOT !

                    First of all, no attention was paid to the creation of a strong rear, so necessary for the conduct of war.
                  4. bayard
                    bayard 13 May 2021 14: 09
                    0
                    Quote: andybuts
                    the point is that there were serious unresolved problems that the authorities did not intend to solve

                    There were always enough problems, including unsolved ones.
                    And the social order was far from perfect.
                    They just blew up our country on the eve of victory, on the initiative of not fugitive revolutionaries. And not for the "contributions of factory workers and the poorest peasantry", but quite for themselves - for Japanese, during the RYA, and for German, during WWI.
                    Remind me of Parvus?
                    And we got such a powerful and in many ways exemplary USSR only because Stalin seized power from the so-called. "old Bolsheviks" and carried out his - Stalin's Program.
                    Lenin did not even think about that.
                    And even more so Trotsky ... with Bukharin, Zinoviev and other handsome men.
                    Therefore, a deep bow to Comrade Stalin and the Russian General Staff, who for the most part not only went over to the side of the Bolsheviks, but in fact seized power for them (from the hands of the traitors to the Provisional Government) and won the Civil War and repelled the Foreign Intervention ... creating and leading the Red Army and later went into the shadows - to teach at military academies, draw up military regulations and manuals, in archives and intelligence.
                    It is only thanks to these people that we can be proud of our Soviet past to this day.
                  5. andybuts
                    andybuts 13 May 2021 23: 52
                    0
                    Dear, you write complete nonsense, in every fact from the comment!
                    They just blew up our country on the eve of victory, on the initiative of not fugitive revolutionaries. And not for the "contributions of factory workers and the poorest peasantry", but quite for themselves - for Japanese, during the RYA, and for German, during WWI

                    remind me, when we were on the verge of victory in 1905? Immediately after the surrender of Port Arthur? maybe after Mukden or Tsushima?
                    and in 1917 there was 1,5 years before the end of the war, which Russia would not have endured. Actually, she could not stand it, and February was organized completely without the Bolsheviks, and after February there was no talk of any victory for Russia.

                    Remind me of Parvus?

                    You still remember the documents of Sisson. You are serious about the theory of federal channels, bloggers like Katz and Varlamov and conspiracy theorists of the prokopenko-old man's level, you will rub me in. Study the events on normal material. Both our historians and foreign historians do not recognize the presence of German money for the Russian revolution. Even Wikipedia denies this fact, and there are often all such nonsense collected.

                    Stalin seized power from the so-called. "old Bolsheviks" and carried out his - Stalin's Program.
                    Lenin did not even think about that.

                    and let's talk about the red emperor, right? The GOERLO plan, the first brick in industrialization was not Lenin's case asserting? Stalin himself always emphasized that he was a faithful Leninist and the successor of his cause. Yes, and in his works he often referred to Ilyich, but in organizing the October Revolution he was not in the very first roles, there the role of Trotsky is enormous, not much less than the role of Lenin.
                    And the role of the tsarist general staff (or intelligence) is far too far-fetched.
                    And as a result, more than half of the officers served in Soviet Russia (51% or 55% - I don’t remember the numbers), but should they all be recorded now in those who established Soviet power?
                  6. bayard
                    bayard 14 May 2021 02: 22
                    0
                    Quote: andybuts
                    remind me, when we were on the verge of victory in 1905? Immediately after the surrender of Port Arthur? maybe after Mukden or Tsushima?

                    In 1905, victory was no longer discussed in the RYA, but exactly in 1905 the Circum-Baikal Railway was completed and the trains went to the Far East without delay, the accumulation of troops, resources, and ammunition was going on. By the end of the summer, the Russian army already outnumbered the Japanese in the Far East by two times and could be guaranteed to defeat and throw it out of the continent - from Manchuria, Korea and Liaodong. At sea there was already nothing to fight with, but it was quite possible to reduce the matter to a draw. And to bring it down precisely by the victory of the land army.
                    But in St. Petersburg, priest Gapon roused the propagandized workers to the storm, brought them under execution ... And so in a timely manner ...
                    Do not find?
                    And when it flared up in the rear, the Russian army in the Far East was no longer up to victories - the war had to be urgently ended. Moreover, the Japanese had already landed on Sakhalin and were rapidly moving from south to north.
                    But if this revolutionary sabotage had not happened, the shame of Tsushima and the surrender of Port Arthur would have been covered with victories over the Japanese army and everything would not have been so sad.
                    And shameful.
                    That is, the revolutionaries ensured a shameful defeat for their homeland.
                    Is it logical?
                    Quote: andybuts
                    and in 1917 there was 1,5 years before the end of the war, which Russia could not stand

                    lol Well, you made fun of it ... If Russia had not come out of the war by a revolution and had not disbanded the army, and as planned, launched a general offensive in the spring and summer of 1917, then Germany would not have withstood.
                    And Germany knew it.
                    And she took action.
                    Like Japan in 1905
                    Quote: andybuts
                    You are serious about the theory of federal channels, bloggers like Katz and Varlamov and conspiracy theorists of the prokopenko-old man's level, you will rub me in. Study the events on normal material.

                    Young man, I comprehended the sciences of the history of the CPSU, Marxist-Leninist philosophy, political economy and scientific communism, when no one had ever heard of the Internet.
                    And he was the best in the course in these disciplines. smile
                    My works were sent to all-Union and republican competitions lol But it was a long time ago .
                    And we knew how to work with primary sources.
                    Libraries and archives, not Wikipedia.
                    Quote: andybuts
                    Both our historians and foreign historians do not recognize the presence of German money for the Russian revolution.

                    lol Are you sure about that ?
                    Are you sure everything?
                    I have known about Parvus since the mid-80s ... but the topic was taboo.
                    Then.
                    And there is enough information about him in the archives.
                    Quote: andybuts
                    and let's talk about the red emperor, right?

                    You better not.
                    Quote: andybuts
                    The GOERLO plan, the first brick in industrialization was not Lenin's case asserting?

                    Approved. yes And who prepared it?
                    Such plans were prepared ahead of time. Specialists. And precisely for the sake of industrialization.
                    Under the "accursed tsarism".
                    Quote: andybuts
                    Stalin himself always emphasized that he was a faithful Leninist and the successor of his cause. And in his works he often referred to Ilyich,

                    Emphasized. After all, he himself became a Bolshevik and a member of the Central Committee long before the revolution.
                    Quote: andybuts
                    and in organizing the October Revolution, he was not in the very first roles, there the role of Trotsky is enormous, not much less than the role of Lenin.

                    laughing Well, they made fun.
                    Neither Lenin nor Trotsky were devoted to the plans for the October Revolution. Lenin was in Razliv, on the run from the police and counterintelligence. And Trotsky, taking advantage of the chaos, armed about 50 thousand bandits and criminals released from prisons and created from them the so-called. "Red Guard", which enthusiastically took up the robbery of wealthy houses in the capital. It was for their capture and neutralization (often by shooting) that the Dzerzhinsky Cheka was created, and the Chekists then captured these "Red Guards" all over Russia for several years.
                    Moreover, Trotsky and Zinoviev were categorically against an armed uprising against the Provisional Government, and even published an open letter revealing the plan for this uprising ...
                    Then, of course, they repented ... and they were ... forgiven.
                    And the mail, telephone, telegraph, banks and government agencies were captured by Russian special forces trained at bases in Finland. And the headquarters in charge of these actions was not in Smolny at all, but in a house on the embankment - in the building of the counterintelligence headquarters of the Petrograd Special Military District. Both Stalin and Dzerzhinsky were there.
                    And Aurora was brought into the Neva and placed next to the headquarters for cover and evacuation, in case of failure of the uprising.
                    Neither Trotsky nor Lenin knew anything about this AT ALL.
                    They were simply given this power and created the Red Army.
                    What do you know about the role of General Bonch-Bruvich?
                    What do you know in general about the true history of those events?
                    Quote: andybuts
                    And as a result, more than half of the officers served in Soviet Russia (51% or 55% - I don’t remember the numbers), but should they all be recorded now in those who established Soviet power?

                    They were very humble and responsible people. They not only seized power from the Provisional Government and handed it over to the Soviets (there were also Mensheviks and Left Socialist-Revolutionaries in a coalition with the Bolsheviks), not only CREATED the Red Army, but also led its armies, corps, divisions, brigades and regiments.
                    It was they who pulled out a civil war with collaborators of the White movement and foreign invaders, created military academies and commander's (the word officer was then forbidden) courses ... They just DONE their job to save the Fatherland and quietly retreated into the shadows. And even from the "shadow" they continued to help the revival of the Fatherland in a new - socialist guise.
                    And many officers and generals of the White movement later returned to the USSR.
                    And they did not end up in the GULAG. I knew and know many of their descendants.
                    I studied on the same course at a military university with the great-grandson of the general from infantry Yudenich. I know the descendants of Kolchak's army officers ... They also served, and some continue to serve, their homeland.
                    As a child, I was friends with the youngest grandson of General Borodin. The one who planned the rout of the headquarters of the Chapayev division and dispatched a group of Colonel Slashchev to this task ... And I myself am the grand-nephew of the commander of the Chapayev division, deputy and friend of Vasily Ivanovich, who replaced him as division commander.
                    The worst and vilest of all wars is the civil one. And that fratricidal massacre was not the choice of my people, but a terrible misfortune and test.
                    And it was kindled by sworn friends and eternal "partners" and "allies", in fact, who created the so-called. White movement, supplying and overseeing these armies of calabers and traitors. Playing on the selfishness of the former masters and the internal contradictions of Russian society ... exhausted by the hardest world war and irritated by the fat bourgeoisie who profited from military contracts.
                    There have always been contradictions.
                    But he always played on them - the ENEMY.
  • Anzhey V.
    6 May 2021 10: 08
    -12%
    In general, they treated the case exactly as the author suggests.
    And got a war with a third-rate regional state ...
    And they lost it with a bang.
    And why ?


    The case was treated exactly as the author suggests not to do.

    If the empire invested money not in beautiful ships, but in the railways (namely, they were not enough in that war, because reinforcements were transferred along the Transisib very slowly due to low traffic capacity), then the outcome of the war would have been different.

    But naval ambitions dragged the country into a notoriously losing confrontation.

    But today our Arctic is developing ... in terms of production and export of hydrocarbons


    Check out the topic for more details. The Arctic is not "developing" anywhere, the existing infrastructure is more than enough. The NSR will never become a new Suez Canal - and an aircraft carrier fleet is not needed to export hydrocarbons.
    1. OgnennyiKotik
      OgnennyiKotik 6 May 2021 10: 35
      +9
      Quote: Anjay V.
      If the empire invested money not in beautiful ships, but in the railways

      And so it goes on. The infrastructure in Russia is terrible and catastrophic. From the European part to the Far East there is 1 railway, 1,5 highways. If anything, we will not transfer anything significant to the Far East.
      The situation is the same with air traffic, there are catastrophically few airports, all routes through Moscow. It's easier to fly to Europe than to get to Tambov.

      Russia gets too much attention to the outside when a huge number of problems are not resolved inside.
      1. Anzhey V.
        6 May 2021 10: 41
        -4
        Russia too much attention to the outside is distracted when a huge number of problems inside are not resolved


        I fully support it. To build an ocean-going fleet, while not the name of developed internal communications, is a crime.
        1. Doctor
          Doctor 6 May 2021 12: 04
          +1
          I fully support it. To build an ocean-going fleet, while not the name of developed internal communications, is a crime.

          That's right.
          Advice. In the following articles, show the negative role of economic investment in the fleet in the largest wars in Russia.
          And then in WWI battleships riveted, and then frantically bought rifles from the Japanese.

          Some people still do not understand the role of the fleet in the collapse of the Republic of Ingushetia. As well as then the USSR. wink
          1. Anzhey V.
            6 May 2021 12: 07
            -5
            Advice. In the following articles, show the negative role of economic investment in the fleet in the largest wars in Russia.
            And then in PMV battleships riveted, and then frantically bought rifles from the Japanese


            Thank you for the tip, comrade!

            A very good topic.
            1. Silhouette
              Silhouette 6 May 2021 21: 09
              0
              It would be even better to use concrete examples to analyze non-PR and propaganda examples of “successful” and “successful” influences of the Soviet Navy on “big” politics. Whether in the Pacific or Indian Oceans. How we were kicked out of Berbera, Egypt, Yemen. And from the same Vietnam. How did "big politics end in Mauritius, Seychelles and Angola. And in Ethiopia too. You can remember Albania - how it all ended. Well, Tunisia, Algeria, Libya. Everywhere there are failures."
          2. WapentakeLokki
            WapentakeLokki 6 May 2021 21: 49
            0
            ... I will continue your thought with an analysis of the Red Army Navy in WWII ... at the beginning of the war, the USSR had the largest submarine fleet, but ... on the Black Sea, only BDB + TKA (and transport crawling in shallow water) in the Baltic, the fleet is locked in the Gulf of Finland and a submarine breakthrough to the Baltic, this is a REAL FEAT (something similar was the case with the Deutsches during the breakthrough through Gibraltar and ... everything) and in the North there was something MIN ... but in all fleets the same submarines fought (and the MAX number of them were Malyutki - paragraph) .. our light forces (EM, the leaders of the EM and the Cruiser) had MAX full speed, but ... they did not have universal radar and MZA standards ... for the whole war, only in the Baltic there was something like a surface battle (yeah EM against the floating base) and even on the Black Sea, EM at full speed dodged backlash attacks by delivering to Sevastopol .. something that they could not deliver there in advance (yeah, from 1923 to 1941) ... and so the whole war EM defended on bases leading art fire (in the Baltic) and accompanying caravans in the North (oh, yes, in the Black Sea, when trying to raid to Constanta, they lost the Leader, but during the raid to Crimea Leader + 2 -a EM ...) so WHY did we build the FLEET (and there was also a LARGE fleet) if the war didn’t need those ships ... not EM, but anti-aircraft missile defense frigates (in the North) monitors in the Baltic and are not needed on the Black Sea (well, what did they do this during the whole war - they smacked along the coast - yeah, without adjustment and died under the blows of dive bombers) ... and how much metal could be built from tanks and art ...
            py.sy. yes, they were preparing for ANOTHER war (if you believe or ... do not believe Suvorov-Rezun) but who will guarantee that in the current reality our sworn partners will play according to the rules that we attribute to them ... and if not, the history of WW I will repeat itself and WW II ...
      2. Knell wardenheart
        Knell wardenheart 6 May 2021 11: 47
        +6
        It happened historically, it seems to me. We rarely knew how to conduct a competent foreign policy - not aimed at taking the rap with cannon fodder in other people's wars or at creating opposing tensions or new enemies.
        In general, the need for an active foreign policy for our country causes me some skepticism - I look at the map of the USSR and see that we had an abundance of practically all resources, territories, and at a certain period of time also the population. Fresh water, EE generation potential, fish resources, oil, coal, metals. Logically, we would just need to methodically master this and develop production-science, and foreign policy should contribute to the expansion of sales markets and the range of friendly states that are tied to us economically.
        Instead, we seem to have two politicians - in one half we work like a semi-colony, regularly supplying resources and purchasing consumer goods in the metropolises. In the other half, we behave like a state of classical imperial thinking from the beginning of some 20th century or the time of Bismarck - and the alternation of the replacement of these halves is not practical at all, and sometimes not logical activity. Controlling or subordinating something "in fact" is often more important to us than setting up and developing what is available or even capturing - like a spoiled child, we crave a car to get a crave for a helicopter.
        1. bayard
          bayard 6 May 2021 14: 20
          +7
          The Soviet Union was forced to defend itself in the Cold War in order to prevent a hot one. And he had every chance of winning it.
          But he fell from the betrayal of his own power.
          They were the ones who were bred as children - for cars ... helicopters ... candy wrappers ...
    2. Dart2027
      Dart2027 6 May 2021 11: 13
      +8
      Quote: Anjay V.
      because the reinforcements along the Transisib were moved very slowly due to low throughput), then the outcome of the war would have been different

      At the end of the war, Russian troops in the Far East outnumbered YaA by almost two times.
      Quote: Anjay V.
      The NSR will never become the new Suez Canal

      If you do nothing, it will not.
      1. Anzhey V.
        6 May 2021 11: 36
        +1
        If you do nothing, it will not.


        Do you understand that the NSR is located in an insanely specific region of the globe?

        Even if you throw all the country's resources there, it will not become more profitable. Yes, this is a sea artery our only, one needs to work on it, but one does not need to fall into blessed ecstasy.
        1. Dart2027
          Dart2027 6 May 2021 11: 46
          +4
          Quote: Anjay V.
          Do you understand that the NSR is located in an insanely specific region of the globe?

          So what? The only difficulty is that so far there are no icebreakers that can carry the largest container ships, but this is a question that can be solved, and without all the resources of the country.
          1. Anzhey V.
            6 May 2021 12: 00
            0
            The only difficulty is that there are no icebreakers yet.


            And also the fact that the depths of the straits, through which the NSR passes, do not allow the passage of container ships with a capacity of more than 4500 TEU.

            And also, due to the temperature regime, some of the goods are simply not transportable.

            And yet there is no port infrastructure - only Murmansk.
            1. Dart2027
              Dart2027 6 May 2021 12: 02
              -1
              Quote: Anjay V.
              And also that the depths of the straits

              If you do not know, but SMP is not a channel.
              Quote: Anjay V.
              And also because of the temperature

              And what kind of cargo is this and what is their share in transportation?
              Quote: Anjay V.
              And there is still no port infrastructure

              Why is she? Loads need to be transported past the coast.
              1. Anzhey V.
                6 May 2021 12: 11
                -2
                Why is she? Loads need to be transported past the coast.


                Clear. I am finishing the conversation with you, dear friend, this is useless demagoguery.

                Read something about how many times a conventional container ship is unloaded and loaded on its way to Europe - it will become clearer to you why the transport artery needs ports along the way, and not just water.

                And what kind of cargo is this and what is their share in transportation?


                Likewise. Read what they carry along the NSR, I will not deal with your education.

                If you want to argue for the sake of an argument - please, but not with me. I'm not interested in this.
                1. Dart2027
                  Dart2027 6 May 2021 15: 05
                  -1
                  Quote: Anjay V.
                  Read something about how many times a conventional container ship is unloaded and loaded on its way to Europe

                  It depends on what and where he is taking on the road. If all the cargo is from point A to point B, then nothing is required to unload, and refueling can be organized without building new cities.
                  Quote: Anjay V.
                  Read what they carry along the NSR, I will not deal with your education.

                  I have given you the specific dynamics of the volume of traffic along the NSR. All that you could give in response is vague reasoning about anything.
          2. Drugov
            Drugov 6 May 2021 16: 19
            +1
            Well, compare with the cargo turnover of Suez, where about 950 million tons.
            1. Dart2027
              Dart2027 6 May 2021 18: 38
              0
              Quote: Drugov
              Well, compare with the cargo turnover of Suez, where

              the system has been operating for a long time and everything is debugged. If you did not pay attention, then the graph shows that the development of the NSR was going on in the USSR, but when everything fell apart and there was a sharp decline. Development is underway now, this is not for one year, but the prospects are quite decent.
              1. Drugov
                Drugov 9 May 2021 20: 35
                0
                The most daring forecasts for the NSR do not exceed 40-50 million tons. Yes, of course there is a caste of propagandists who declare that soon all world traffic will go through the Arctic waters, but do you and I understand that this is not so? Therefore, we will take the maximum tolerance, taking into account warming and the commissioning of the entire Arctic group of icebreakers, and we will get the same 50 million tons, so what? Will this somehow change the agenda? Moreover, the Suez may have a second line.
                1. Dart2027
                  Dart2027 9 May 2021 21: 53
                  +1
                  Quote: Drugov
                  The most daring forecasts for the NSR do not exceed 40-50 million tons.

                  Indeed, what a trifle, you transport so much every week in your car. Even if it is limited to this, then this is already a huge jackpot, to miss which is the top ...
                  Quote: Drugov
                  all global traffic will go through arctic waters

                  The whole will not go, simply because in some cases the NSR will be a shorter route, and in some it will not.
                  Quote: Drugov
                  Moreover, the Suez may have a second line.

                  If it appears that is not a fact.
                2. Drugov
                  Drugov 9 May 2021 22: 26
                  0
                  It's a pity at this time, the beautiful is not to live for me or you)))
                  Let's hope and believe, as they say, and that the first to happen is 20 million tons on the NSR and the second line of the Suez.
                3. Dart2027
                  Dart2027 10 May 2021 06: 52
                  +1
                  Quote: Drugov
                  It's a pity at this time, the beautiful is not to live for me or you)))

                  And is this a reason to do nothing? The state should plan not only for the near future, but also for decades ahead.
                4. Drugov
                  Drugov 11 May 2021 18: 05
                  0
                  Here I agree with you 1000 percent, but is it worth waiting for such actions from the current leaders of the state ????????
                5. Dart2027
                  Dart2027 11 May 2021 19: 28
                  0
                  Quote: Drugov
                  but is it worth waiting for such actions from the current leaders of the state

                  Here is no need for this whining. Review the graph that I gave above.
                6. Drugov
                  Drugov 11 May 2021 22: 59
                  0
                  The hopes of young men are nourished. The chart is a piece of paper with scribbles, but the reality may not coincide with the growing trend of the chart. Let's wait and see the results of this work.
                7. Dart2027
                  Dart2027 12 May 2021 19: 41
                  0
                  Quote: Drugov
                  The schedule is a piece of paper

                  Which shows what is already there.
                  Quote: Drugov
                  reality may be

                  Maybe, but this is not a reason to sit and do nothing.
  • Oleg ratay
    Oleg ratay 6 May 2021 18: 31
    +2
    Icebreaker pilotage will always be more expensive, plus the unstable weather of the North and irregular pilotage.
    1. Dart2027
      Dart2027 6 May 2021 18: 38
      0
      And therefore, the amount transported is growing up.
      1. Oleg ratay
        Oleg ratay 8 May 2021 11: 46
        +1
        The so-called. northern delivery, from Zossia to Russia. And the transit, say, from Asia to Europe was and remains symbolic.
        1. Dart2027
          Dart2027 8 May 2021 12: 10
          0
          Quote: Oleg Ratay
          And transit, say, from Asia to Europe

          Doubled in 2020. The process goes on, and the rest is decided as it develops.
  • Doctor
    Doctor 6 May 2021 11: 34
    +3
    And got a war with a third-rate regional state ...
    And they lost it with a bang.
    And why ?


    The case was treated exactly as the author suggests not to do.

    If the empire invested money not in beautiful ships, but in the railways (namely, they were not enough in that war, because reinforcements were transferred along the Transisib very slowly due to low traffic capacity), then the outcome of the war would have been different.

    But naval ambitions dragged the country into a notoriously losing confrontation.

    But today our Arctic is developing ... in terms of production and export of hydrocarbons


    Check out the topic for more details. The Arctic is not "developing" anywhere, the existing infrastructure is more than enough. The NSR will never become a new Suez Canal - and an aircraft carrier fleet is not needed to export hydrocarbons.

    Article 5 c +.

    The main message is very clearly drawn - the existence of any structure must have a military, economic or political meaning.

    For example, according to the records of the Spanish priest and historian Pedro Cieza de Leon, during the period from 1541 to 1560, about 500 tons of gold were exported from America to Spain.

    Or shaved. So, only from 1749 to 1858 the British exported from India: opium - 74 million 390 pounds. Art .; grain - by 23 million 190 thousand pounds. Art .; raw cotton - by 19 million 380 thousand pounds Art .; wool - by 2 million 210 thousand pounds Art. In 1757-1812. the direct income of the British colonialists in India alone amounted to over £ 100 million.

    This is the secret of the development of the fleets of Spain, Great Britain and others.

    In all other cases, the fleet is the anchor that pulls the country's economy to the bottom. request
    1. Anzhey V.
      6 May 2021 12: 13
      -4
      The main message is very clearly drawn - the existence of any structure must have a military, economic or political meaning.


      Thank you for your adequate perception!

      I am glad that there are people who are able to understand what they have read without going into hysterics.
    2. bayard
      bayard 6 May 2021 14: 57
      +4
      Quote: Arzt
      from 1541 to 1560, about 500 tons of gold were exported from America to Spain.

      Or shaved. So, only from 1749 to 1858 the British exported from India: opium - 74 million 390 pounds. Art .; grain - by 23 million 190 thousand pounds. Art .; raw cotton - by 19 million 380 thousand pounds Art .; wool - by 2 million 210 thousand pounds Art. In 1757-1812. the direct income of the British colonialists in India alone amounted to over £ 100 million.

      Good example .
      That's just the RI built on Liaodong, first of all, the COMMERCIAL PORT and the city of Dalniy. And only secondarily is the infrastructure in Port Arthur.
      No shore batteries!
      Without a dry dock in the main base of the Pacific Fleet!
      But on the other hand, with a wide network of railways, the CER, Harbin is like the capital of Zheltorussia. All for the sake of TRADE!
      Exactly as you and the author of the article suggest.
      Oil instead of cannons.
      Are you expecting the same result from such proposals?
      But there will be no other way.
      ... And how trade flourished on the eve of the war ... and after it ...
      But this did not help in the war.
      And in a new war - no, it will not help.
      1. Doctor
        Doctor 6 May 2021 18: 52
        +1
        Good example .
        That's just the RI built on Liaodong, first of all, the COMMERCIAL PORT and the city of Dalniy. And only secondarily is the infrastructure in Port Arthur.
        No shore batteries!
        Without a dry dock in the main base of the Pacific Fleet!
        But on the other hand, with a wide network of railways, the CER, Harbin is like the capital of Zheltorussia. All for the sake of TRADE!
        Exactly as you and the author of the article suggest.
        Oil instead of cannons.
        Are you expecting the same result from such proposals?
        But there will be no other way.
        ... And how trade flourished on the eve of the war ... and after it ...
        But this did not help in the war.
        And in a new war - no, it will not help.

        And who hindered or is now hindering trading from Nakhodka?

        Just for one Inca they got 6 kg of gold. In such a scenario, piracy appeared at the state level, led by Drake.
        And then it went, it went. More precisely, it swam. laughing
        1. bayard
          bayard 6 May 2021 22: 33
          +6
          Quote: Arzt
          And who hindered or is now hindering trading from Nakhodka?

          This is how they trade. And they are building a new coal port on Sakhalin. Only then did Russia trade not in resources, but in goods. And there are a lot of buyers in China. And our merchants bought Chinese goods to Russia and Europe directly in China. And the CER was built precisely for this. And the grain was going to be grown in Manchuria, the lands there are suitable, and 10-kilometer strips of territory around the railway network in China were under Russian jurisdiction - settle peasants and retired soldiers / sailors, master, grow wheat, rye, millet, barley, backwater gardens ... In Siberia, there are not many suitable lands for this, and the climate is not the same, but in Manchuria for a Russian it is just that. Shipbuilding capacities were laid in Port Arthur and Dalny. And ice-free ports are needed not only for the navy, but also for the merchant fleet.
          And there were views of Korea, she was inclined to the Russian protectorate and everything could work out.
          The very concept - Zheltorossiya was invented at that time.
          Why rob like the British and Spaniards, if you can trade very profitably?
          Tea, spices, silk, porcelain - from there.
          Machine-made goods, tools, etc. - there.
          Chinese workers on the construction of railways were paid in paper rubles, and they bought this money from us in Russia, and sent them home with parcels.
          Everything was very beneficial.
          Mutually beneficial.
          And Russia saved China from the Japanese invasion by connecting Germany and France for the company. For which she received from grateful China Port Arthur with the Liaodong Peninsula on lease and the right to build the CER.
          Without Chinese workers, we would never have built the Trans-Siberian Railway in 8 years. And they continued to build roads here, right up to the revolution itself.
          And during the war, the Chinese were rooting for our army and navy.
          But the same Englishmen behaved quite differently.
          And they really made themselves capital, industrialization, science and the fleet, at the expense of plundered in the colonies, the opium trade in China, the merciless exploitation of India ...
          Or are you suggesting that we go the same way today?
          Raise the "Jolly Roger" instead of the St. Andrew's flag and hit the hardest?
          Russia lost that war solely because it did not have an efficient Navy. There was only his appearance - weak and flawed.
          But Gorshkov built a real Ocean Fleet.
          A fleet capable of challenging any fleet of the time.
          And he approached this in a complex way.
          And now his doctrine is relevant and instructive.
          Does Russia need an ocean-going fleet today?
          The government and the Presidential Administration know better. But judging by the fact that a naval base is planned in Sudan, negotiations were underway with Vietnam, Cuba, Venezuela, Nicaragua, Egypt and even Iran - a fact.
          Apparently they were conducted for the future.
          And there can be no oceanic fleet without aircraft carriers.
          Without them, our oligarchs and corporations cannot keep their markets, protect their overseas assets, and ensure uninterrupted sea traffic.
          That is why the Guarantor spoke in riddles when laying the UDC.
          That is why sabotage intensified to the limit - all the "sleeping" ones were awakened.
          That is why with enviable regularity there are articles like this about the "unnecessary and even harmful" of a strong Navy for Russia.
          And what will come of all this, time will tell.
          1. Doctor
            Doctor 6 May 2021 23: 30
            +2
            This is how they trade. And a new coal port on Sakhalin is being built

            That's it. And no aircraft carriers.

            And the grain was going to be grown in Manchuria, the land there is suitable ...
            in Manchuria for a Russian person - the very thing

            Maybe. But look at the map. Manchuria is not Australia. You don't have to go there. We came to Port Arthur by land.
            I will say more: for a Russian person, Spain is the very thing. And if we had some smarter strategists ...

            And they really made themselves capital, industrialization, science and the fleet, at the expense of plundered in the colonies, the opium trade in China, the merciless exploitation of India ...
            Or are you suggesting that we go the same way today?

            This is exactly what the Big Fleet supporters are proposing. laughing
            Otherwise, it is simply not clear why it is needed, because we do not carry gold from India.

            But Gorshkov built a real Ocean Fleet.
            A fleet capable of challenging any fleet of the time.
            And he approached this in a complex way.
            And now his doctrine is relevant and instructive.

            Capable. But he never gave up. And the money is gone - a breakthrough.

            The doctrine is instructive: if you want to destroy the now Russian Federation, lay down a Gorshkovsky-style fleet.
            "Perestroika" will come very quickly. wink

            Does Russia need an ocean-going fleet today?
            The government and the Presidential Administration know better. But judging by the fact that a naval base is planned in Sudan, negotiations were underway with Vietnam, Cuba, Venezuela, Nicaragua, Egypt and even Iran - a fact.

            I remember a bearded joke:
            Petka: Vasil Vanych, something has been bothering me in NicaraguA lately.
            Chapaev: And you are Petya less than scratching him ...

            And there can be no oceanic fleet without aircraft carriers. Without them, our oligarchs and corporations cannot keep their markets, not protect their overseas assets.

            Their assets in American banks are reliably protected by the United States Navy aircraft carriers. laughing

            That is why with enviable regularity there are articles like this about the "unnecessary and even harmful" of a strong Navy for Russia.

            I just do not want to step on this rake, the naval operators have fought, Kharkov must be fought back again. crying
            1. bayard
              bayard 7 May 2021 08: 12
              +3
              Quote: Arzt
              This is how they trade. And a new coal port on Sakhalin is being built

              That's it. And no aircraft carriers.

              How to protect all this? Basin of the Sea of ​​Okhotsk? Kuril archipelago? Kamchatka and Chukotka? How to move the air defense lines from our shores beyond the launch range of their CD?
              That is why our avion-carrying ships were there (though the Yak-41 did not wait). We do not need attack carriers, but air defense / anti-aircraft missile defense - to ensure the stability of the fleet. Beaten by those, I don't want to.
              Quote: Arzt

              Maybe. But look at the map. Manchuria is not Australia. You don't have to go there. We came to Port Arthur by land.

              On horseback?
              The Usurian Cossacks came there by land. And the Russian army came there by SEA.
              And the supply, and the delivery of everything necessary for the arrangement of the bases, and the delivery of personnel, workers for the Port Arthur Shipyard ... and even prostitutes for the garrison brothel - everything went by sea. For this, Dobroflot was created.
              It looks nice on the map - Manchuria and Liaodong from the Republic of Ingushetia "across the river". But in reality, there was no railway communication with the mainland at that time, and you cannot transfer everything there on foot and on horseback.
              And all the materials for the construction of the CER were imported by sea. And even building materials - the same cement, mainly from Japan.
              Then those territories were just settling in.
              Quote: Arzt
              I will say more: for a Russian person, Spain is the very thing. And if we had some smarter strategists ...

              "Smarter" we have those who bought their own real estate there.
              Are you proposing "smart strategists" to seize the NATO country under "Russian arable land"? lol
              Quote: Arzt
              Otherwise, it is simply not clear why it is needed, because we do not carry gold from India.

              But we carry gold from Venezuela ... and we carry black gold too.
              And from Iran - we carry.
              In general, we have very extensive trade with India. And India participates in our Arctic projects - gas carriers will go to India in caravans. And they need to be protected.
              Quote: Arzt
              Capable. But he never gave up. And the money is gone - a breakthrough.

              He just quit, and more than once. And in the Mediterranean, when the Yankees surrendered, and during the Indo-Pakistan War, when the United States was ready to enter the war on the side of Pakistan. India believes to this day that it was then that Gorshkov's fleet saved their independence.
              The United States took revenge on leash in the early 80s, deploying from the 70s SOSUS and the most powerful anti-submarine forces ... and building a huge herd of Elks.
              And we were preparing the answer to this, and it was very effective. But the ruling elite, led by MI6 agents, Andropov's chicks, were already preparing the country for surrender.
              There was no military defeat in the 80s, and neither did the economic one.
              And the fleet (ships and OShS) was cut in the 90s, under the supervision of and even for US money.
              So that there was nothing to be revived, if that.
              Quote: Arzt
              "Perestroika" will come very quickly.

              It has already passed and has not been interrupted since.
              Quote: Arzt
              I remember a bearded joke:
              Petka: Vasil Vanych, something has been bothering me in NicaraguA lately.
              Chapaev: And you are Petya less than scratching him ...

              It was about Honduras.
              Quote: Arzt
              Their assets in American banks are reliably protected by the United States Navy aircraft carriers.

              Is it reliable?
              The projects of NOVOTEK, Rosneft and Norilsk Nickel are mainly developing in the Arctic.
              And the United States can only take over the protection of the assets of "Russian oligarchs" by the type of Rusal and Deripaska.
              Quote: Arzt
              I just do not want to step on this rake, the naval operators have fought, Kharkov must be fought off again

              yes And Nikolaev.
              And Odessa.
              And Zaporozhye.
              And Dnepropetrovsk-Yekaterinoslav.
              And Kiev is the mother of Russian cities.
              And immediately it will become easier to build a fleet. yes
              With Nikolaev turbines and gearboxes, and at the Nikolaev shipyards. bully
              And the Yak-44 will again become relevant, for the engines will be supplied by Motor-Sich - they are the same there as on the An-70.
              All this SHOULD be done. yes
              1. Doctor
                Doctor 7 May 2021 16: 22
                +1
                How to protect all this? Basin of the Sea of ​​Okhotsk? Kuril archipelago? Kamchatka and Chukotka? How to move the air defense lines from our shores beyond the launch range of their CD?
                That is why our avion-carrying ships were there (though the Yak-41 did not wait). We do not need attack carriers, but air defense / anti-aircraft missile defense - to ensure the stability of the fleet. Beaten by those, I don't want to.

                But we carry gold from Venezuela ... and we carry black gold too.
                And from Iran - we carry.
                In general, we have very extensive trade with India. And India participates in our Arctic projects - gas carriers will go to India in caravans. And they need to be protected.

                Understand you a simple thing.
                The US economy is 25 TIMES more powerful than ours.
                No matter how many aircraft carriers we build, they will still build more and in a special period they will cut off all sea transportation.
                And in peacetime, a couple of frigates from pirates are enough.

                And the supply, and the delivery of everything necessary for the arrangement of the bases, and the delivery of personnel, workers for the Port Arthur Shipyard ... and even prostitutes for the garrison brothel - everything went by sea. For this, Dobroflot was created.

                This is called stupidity. Imagine Americans driving prostitutes from the East Coast to the West Coast, bypassing Cape Horn. laughing

                Are you proposing "smart strategists" to seize the NATO country under "Russian arable land"? lol

                Yes sir. And in 1812 and in WWI and WWII there were opportunities.
                You will say - nonsense, and I will say - correctly assigned priorities in the structure of the armed forces.
                Just look at the map, what's the point of poking the sea into this Bosphorus?
                We need the Balkans. And build yourself ports from Trieste to Thessaloniki. wink

                The projects of NOVOTEK, Rosneft and Norilsk Nickel are mainly developing in the Arctic.

                Forget about the Arctic, this is a horror story like the SDI, so that we can pull funds there.
                And do not count the icebreakers, if the staff were really interested in the North, they would already have the most powerful icebreaker fleet in the world.

                yes And Nikolaev.
                And Odessa.
                And Zaporozhye.
                And Dnepropetrovsk-Yekaterinoslav.
                And Kiev is the mother of Russian cities.
                And immediately it will become easier to build a fleet. yes
                With Nikolaev turbines and gearboxes, and at the Nikolaev shipyards. bully

                Конечно.
                But everything needs to be done sequentially. If you have a budget of a couple trillion yards, you might think about the fleet.
                For example, what income do you need per month to buy a yacht? laughing
              2. bayard
                bayard 7 May 2021 20: 18
                +1
                Quote: Arzt
                The US economy is 25 TIMES more powerful than ours.

                smile smile smile Exactly 25 times?
                Or every 8 - at par.
                And if at purchasing power parity?
                And the US Navy is needed not only, and not so much against us, as against China, which is growing both by the economy and by the fleet. wink In China, the pace of building a fleet is 4 (!!!) times higher than in the United States and in 10-15 years they will surpass them all - in the economy by 2 - 3 times, and by the number of pennants in the same amount, with an equal number of aircraft carriers and UDC. And they also intend the submarine at a pace ... at a high pace, new sheds for this have already been built and will still be built.
                And they have money.
                So the US Navy has enough tasks besides us.
                And we need a fleet not to compete with the United States in numbers or in sea battles in a vacuum, but to ensure security from sea areas and to ensure the safety of navigation.
                Quote: Arzt
                No matter how many aircraft carriers we build, they will still build more and in a special period they will cut off all sea transportation.

                smile Until a special period? If such a period comes, it will be unambiguous to seaborne trade to end by definition ... until the period ends with the surrender of the losing side or peace negotiations. And in peacetime, no one (!) Will dare to interfere with the navigation of the Russian merchant fleet if its safety is ensured by the Russian Navy from its bases in the Mediterranean, Red and Arabian Seas. And the MTO base or a full-fledged naval base in Kamran will be more than justified.
                Justified / justified they will be the INTENSITY of sea trade.
                This is what superyards are being built for in the Far East and on the Kola Peninsula.
                Now we have ice-class tankers and gas carriers on the fingers of one hand, and when there are several dozen, or more than a hundred, the picture will be completely different. And no one will leave such an economy without protection.
                This is not a pipe pumping, with transit problems.
                I repeat - only there is more explored oil there than in Saudi Arabia.
                And the oil is VERY good.
                And very expensive.

                Quote: Arzt
                And in peacetime, a couple of frigates from pirates are enough.

                Enough of pirates and a couple of corvettes - in Sudan.
                And the same number in Kamran.
                But so that the enemy fleets do not play pranks and do not try to pirate, we need more powerful ships.
                And so that democracy is not brought to the countries in which we have invested money and rely on profit.
                Quote: Arzt
                This is called stupidity. Imagine Americans driving prostitutes from the East Coast to the West Coast, bypassing Cape Horn.

                Well, it was possible to send prostitutes through the mountains, deserts and prairies on foot - fortunately, they are not far away, they will reach them in a couple of years. And we have a lot of distances. And not prairies, but all mountains and forests ... and water barriers.
                Here the railway is needed.
                And you need to build it.
                And there are few Russian peasants in those parts, and they all work in the fields in the warm season - they are stocked up for the winter. There is no time for them to engage in excavation work.
                But there are many Chinese. They were hired.
                And in 8 years they built a railway in length commensurate with the Pan-American railway, and in terms of the complexity of the relief and climate - many times more difficult conditions.
                The Pan American railway was built for 100 (one hundred!) Years. And also the Chinese.
                So who we have filonil and did not know how to organize the work?
                But the fact of the matter is that our enemies knew both our pace and the timing of the shipbuilding program, and therefore built a fleet for Japan (the entire Japanese fleet was built in England, and several ships for acceleration were built in Germany, France and the USA. .. and also bought Italian ones) two years ahead of time.
                And American banks poured money for the war.
                ... And while the Transsib was being built, everything was delivered by steamers.
                Tea and American prostitutes from East to West, it would be more comfortable to ride in the cabins of the steamer - through the Panama Canal. Like us - through Suez.
                And now it is much more convenient to carry cargo by sea transport through Suez than even by rail. Otherwise, our Transsib today would have four tracks in each direction.
                Quote: Arzt
                Yes sir. And in 1812 and in WWI and WWII there were opportunities.

                Dare young man, we will give you "Parabellum". yes
                Quote: Arzt
                You say - nonsense,

                yes I'll tell you. yes
                For in 1812 RI (both Austrian and Prussia) fought with the French for ENGLISH money. bully What are the priorities here? laughing - rolled the enemy of the Britons, and to their homes - to pacify the peasants.
                Or have they forgotten HOW Alexander-1 was brought to power?
                Quote: Arzt
                Just look at the map, what's the point of poking the sea into this Bosphorus?

                Yes, such that there is no longer any strait to carry grain from Novorossiysk to Europe. And warships from the Black Sea do not go by land.
                Grain traders were the main lobbyists for the seizure of the Bosphorus from the Dardanelles. And then grain was today's oil.
                Quote: Arzt
                We need the Balkans. And build yourself ports from Trieste to Thessaloniki.

                Brothers of traitors to their collective farm? belay
                Well, I do not !
                All the more so, armed with an afterthought, I will say that in both wars (WWII and WWII) the brothers fought exclusively against us.
                And in the Third - WILL BE. yes
                It would have been better to expel the Turks from Thrace.
                According to the results of WWI, we should have owned everything from Thrace to Syria inclusive.
                And it got (Syria) to the French under the mandate.
                Quote: Arzt
                Forget about the Arctic, this is a horror story like the SDI, so that we can pull funds there.

                Resources in the Arctic!
                Siberia is running out of oil and gas. The Arctic will start working - these will receive, replenish, and it will be possible to pump again 30 years after stopping.
                Otherwise there is no way - an Energy Superpower.
                Or a "gas station" ... but at the same time - a QUEEN.
                In short - WILL BE DOWNLOAD.
                And carry.
                And to guard the transported.
                And there will be money for security.
                And if necessary, "Zircons" will be piled on their yachts.
                But they will protect.
                I saw in 2011 how about a dozen tankers were loaded in Novorossiysk, and the escort was provided by the owner of the caravan himself - on his yacht.
                And the time was peaceful and quite partner-like.
                Now - only an aircraft carrier! soldier
                And half a dozen frigates. bully
                Quote: Arzt
                And do not count the icebreakers, if the staff were really interested in the North, they would already have the most powerful icebreaker fleet in the world.

                They have no North, no icebreaker fleet and ice-class ships, because all the resources they are interested in are in warm countries.
                But now interest has arisen. And immediately there were plans to build a dozen icebreakers to ensure "freedom of navigation" along the NSR. bully
                Quote: Arzt
                Конечно.
                But everything needs to be done sequentially. If you have a budget of a couple trillion yards, you might think about the fleet.

                With a couple of trillions in the budget and @ ur & k can. And you try with what you have.
                And what is (within the budget of the Navy) is enough.
              3. Doctor
                Doctor 7 May 2021 23: 08
                0
                smile smile smile Exactly 25 times?

                Nearly. One Apple - three budgets of the Russian Federation.


                And we need a fleet not to compete with the United States in numbers or in sea battles in a vacuum, but to ensure security from sea areas and to ensure the safety of navigation.

                And in peacetime, no one (!) Will dare to interfere with the navigation of the Russian merchant fleet if its safety is ensured by the Russian Navy from its bases in the Mediterranean, Red and Arabian Seas.

                Thats exactly what I mean.
                Any peacetime attack on a ship is a declaration of war. Well, except for the pirates.
                And then - we do not compete with the States, the frigate is enough for the rest.

                And now it is much more convenient to carry cargo by sea transport through Suez than even by rail.

                Minor. Something around 6%. Mostly Russian Railways.

                Dare young man, we will give you "Parabellum".

                They already dared. And we have been to Berlin more than once. And in Paris.

                It is a pity that the money spent on the fleet was not smart enough to use the army and aviation.
                Maybe they would have visited Lisbon.

                But the naval successes are more modest. wink

                Brothers of traitors to their collective farm? belay
                Well, I do not !

                Brothers in the Far East. By sea. laughing
                And to explore the Adriatic by ourselves. As I say, look at the map.

                Resources in the Arctic!
                Now - only an aircraft carrier! soldier
                And half a dozen frigates.

                The entire NSR is perfectly controlled from the coast.

                With a couple of trillions in the budget and @ ur & k can. And you try with what you have.
                And what is (within the budget of the Navy) is enough.

                Not. Now it is impossible to spray. If we push against the fleet, we will lose the country. repeat
              4. bayard
                bayard 9 May 2021 19: 04
                +1
                Quote: Arzt
                Nearly. One Apple - three budgets of the Russian Federation.

                It's okay - according to the lawsuit and the court decision against Google, he already owes us either $ 1,5, or $ 2,5 trillion, so we will exact, and we will rebuild. bully
                And by the fleet, and by roads, and by yachts.
                And yet, in comparison with the United States, about 15 times. And this is after the devaluation and not at all according to purchasing power parity.
                In the United States, building an SSBN like our Borey will cost $ 2,5 billion. , if not 3 billion, but we have 550 million.
                If we calculate by PPP, but only the real sector, and not the services of parehmakers and futures on the stock exchanges, then ... after all, we have already counted - about 2 - 3 times less than our GDP. So after all, the population is about the same time less.
                And we do not give out benefits to unemployed blacks. And there is no such state debt, which also needs to be serviced.
                So even with such a budget, you can build a fleet, and strengthen an army, and roads, and science, and still buy apartments for veterans.
                But not with this power. request
                Alas, for all the years of being at the helm of such, competence and responsibility have not been confirmed.
                Quote: Arzt
                And then - we do not compete with the States, the frigate is enough for the rest.

                One? belay
                Isn't it not enough? For the protection of oligarchic good? what
                Quote: Arzt
                It is a pity that the money spent on the fleet was not smart enough to use the army and aviation.
                Maybe they would have visited Lisbon.

                To visit Lisbon, it was necessary to fight with the United States and England.
                And we have just joined together barely defeated Germany with satellites ...
                And the USA and England have the main military force - the Navy.
                So Stalin began to build ships right after the war.
                Where to go? When are the two leading maritime powers now opposing?
                True, diplomacy helped - the United States grabbed the British Empire, and during that time they themselves had already pulled up the Navy more or less.
                And after the Caribbean Crisis came - AWARENESS.
                And Gorshkov was still untied for the construction of the Fleet.
                Quote: Arzt
                But the naval successes are more modest.

                REALLY?
                Disperse the US 6th Fleet with allies from the Syrian and Egyptian shores during the Arab-Israeli wars ...?
                Stand up against the US 5th Fleet with a very limited set of forces and PREVENT their interference in the Indo-Pakistani War ... Forcing the carrier groups to "back out" ...?
                Preventing a whole series of coups and wars against regimes friendly to the USSR ...?
                These are not successes?
                The Americans disagree with you. They took the Soviet Navy very seriously at that time.
                And the Indians, so to this day, believe that Gorshkov with his Fleet then saved them from the American defeat.
                And ensured VICTORY.
                The fleet built by Gorshkov was present everywhere and always appeared where it was needed.
                And the ground generals no longer doubted its usefulness and necessity.
                For Gorshkov did it all.
                Quote: Arzt
                Brothers in the Far East. By sea.

                Where are we going?
                On rafts?
                Quote: Arzt
                And to explore the Adriatic by ourselves. As I say, look at the map.

                Ours have already mastered it.
                So many real estate bought ...
                Quote: Arzt
                The entire NSR is perfectly controlled from the coast.

                That's just HOW to get to the other side?
                Throw off with a parachute?
                To the southern coast of the Arctic Ocean?
                There are no roads there, and you don't want to build icebreakers ...
                And it is necessary to pump oil. smile
                She is very good there and there is a LOT of her.
                Not less than the Saudi Arabs.
                And gas - just heaps.
                But how will the Yankees build their own ten - one and a half icebreakers?
                The decision has already been made ...
                Yes, they will declare their rights to "navigation" and use of resources there?
                And, in your opinion, will a crazy polar explorer with a double-barreled gun come out to meet them and hound them with dogs?
                Quote: Arzt
                Not. Now it is impossible to spray. If we push against the fleet, we will lose the country.

                We have already lost our Country - in 1991.
                And the one who now owns it doesn't really care about us ... If they really feel like it, they'll just sell it. As the communists of the Khrushchev-Andropov sourdough already sold ...
                How Deripaska is his assets.
                It's about plans - about them, not about us.
                And they are still building something.
  • Artyom Karagodin
    Artyom Karagodin 6 May 2021 11: 55
    +4
    Andrey, you'd better write about "soft power", this is really great for you. Why go into the area where you are never a specialist?
    1. Anzhey V.
      6 May 2021 12: 18
      -5
      Good day, Artem! Both here and there, the basis is the universal logic of the strategy.

      And it's funny - playing in defense of Kaliningrad with the help of an aircraft carrier (!) Is an expert level, and the thesis that the fleet does not exist in a vacuum and is closely related to the economy is stupidity.

      However, I will not argue.
      1. Artyom Karagodin
        Artyom Karagodin 6 May 2021 13: 07
        +12
        There is no universal strategy, unless you mean by it a set of measures - from diplomacy and "soft power" to military force. Since the strategy of actions at sea, on land, in the air - these are PRINCIPALLY different strategies. Needless to say, these types of strategies cannot simply be transferred to the field of economics and diplomacy, and vice versa? And in your article you are calling for something like this. Academician Fomenko tried to apply mathematics in history. Do we want to follow in his footsteps by crossing a pig and a goose?

        As for the need for aircraft carriers for Russia, this was confirmed in Soviet times by several research projects, which clearly showed that coastal aviation, that is, including MRA, are capable of protecting our ships no more than 300 nautical miles from the coast. And then, with a high degree of probability, they will no longer arrive to defend, but to take revenge. Therefore, aircraft carriers in the USSR were also built (I mean "kuznetsov-class" and "Ulyanovsk") under a different concept, like air defense aircraft carriers, whose task is not so much strikes on the shore as air cover for their surface forces, MRA. The task of which, in turn, is to move the zone of potential hostilities away from their coast. So the navy is primarily about protecting the shores, but about "displaying the flag", protecting Iranian tankers, and so on. - this is already an application. Which, too, cannot be avoided, but which is not the main one.

        Even the Americans are building their ABs not only to advance their interests in the world, but also so that their shores simply cannot be approached. They will intercept any enemy on the way. Then this huge oceanic fleet was built. But they have no adversaries at sea in the immediate vicinity, while we have Britain, France and Japan. And there are also a lot of smaller fish. Therefore, we will NEVER have an ocean-going fleet comparable to the United States, our tasks are different.

        And it is very difficult to ensure the actions of our SSBNs without AB, given the power of the enemy anti-submarine aviation. One of our AUG can close a huge territory from its actions, which will allow our "strategists" to "get lost" either under the ice of the Arctic, or in the vastness of the Pacific oceans. Now our "Boreas" and "Dolphins" are virtually defenseless. And the size of this problem will only continue to grow. What this can promise us, I think, is clear and without unnecessary explanations.

        I, of course, am an amateur in naval matters, but even I know such elementary things. Because I read specialists. Although there was a time when I thought that we would overwhelm all aircraft carriers with "Topols". Your approach looks more presentable, of course, but in terms of competence, alas, it is not much inferior.
      2. Artyom Karagodin
        Artyom Karagodin 6 May 2021 13: 15
        +5
        And yes, good afternoon. Excuse me for my impoliteness. It was necessary to start with this.
  • timokhin-aa
    timokhin-aa 6 May 2021 13: 00
    +8
    If the empire invested money not in beautiful ships, but in the railways (namely, they were not enough in that war, because reinforcements were transferred along the Transisib very slowly due to low traffic capacity), then the outcome of the war would have been different.


    There was not enough Transsib in any form. This has been considered many times.
    1. NIKN
      NIKN 6 May 2021 16: 27
      +1
      How many sticks for the fleet have already been broken, they have already reached the furniture ... :)) The message of the article, which does not concern the fleet, is correct, not such a war now as in stereotypes and the war is already going on right now. Well, in the fleet, constant throwing from one extreme to another, I don't think that it is not being built and those are no longer taken into account in the plans, everything possible is being done, and how this question is not at all in the topic of necessity and unnecessary, and who is to blame here is also a question the third.
      PS: I looked at the schedules of cargo transportation, came to the conclusion "Armored trains are our everything!" (sarcasm) smile
  • bayard
    bayard 6 May 2021 13: 14
    +9
    Quote: Anjay V.
    If the empire invested money not in beautiful ships, but in the railways (namely, they were not enough in that war, because reinforcements were transferred along the Transisib very slowly due to low traffic capacity), then the outcome of the war would have been different.

    The Transsib was built in a record 8 years, no one could have been faster. And yes, they built it on the same track with siding, otherwise it would have been even longer. Difficulties with the construction of the Circum-Baikal Railway delayed the straight path - they had to chop up balconies on the slopes of the mountains and pull the road along them. They were in a VERY hurry, but managed to do it only in 1905. And they knew that it wouldn’t work out before.
    The enemy also knew. First of all, England. Therefore, both BI and the United States drove Japan to war in 1903 ... but they did not dare until they received two additional Italian armored cruisers.
    And it was in such a situation that only the Fleet could save the Republic of Ingushetia from defeat.
    Sufficient to prevent the landing of Japanese troops in Korea and the seizure of the initiative in the war at sea.
    That is - I needed a "dinner spoon"!
    But she was not there. RI lost precisely in strategic planning. It was in the period 1903 - 1904 that the Japan did not have a significant advantage in everything.
    And Japan took advantage of this advantage.
    And every time our enemies will USE our weaknesses.
    Quote: Anjay V.
    But naval ambitions dragged the country into a notoriously losing confrontation.

    RI was dragged into the war by striving to reach the warm seas and fertile lands in the Far East.
    And for the sake of TRADE.
    It was then that the RI fleet was needed.
    And its construction began - carelessly, with poor planning and organization of work.
    It's just that without the fleet, all ventures in the Far East were not supported.
    No, not diplomacy - a power component.
    And then there was a narrow-minded young lover of parades in power.
    Quote: Anjay V.
    Check out the topic for more details. The Arctic is not "developing" anywhere, the existing infrastructure is more than enough.

    lol And that is why such funds are invested in its (Arctic) infrastructure?
    And for WHAT is the existing infrastructure "more than enough" for?
    Quote: Anjay V.
    The Suez Canal will never become - and an aircraft carrier fleet is not needed to export hydrocarbons.

    Yes, not for left-handed traffic, everything was started there, but for the sake of access to Arctic deposits - oil (light and very high quality, which is like in Saudi Arabia), gas (which can only be transported by liquefying, and only by ice-class gas carriers), metals, including precious and rare earth.
    And it's not just about the need to protect our possessions in the Arctic.
    And not even that much.
    All these tankers and gas carriers from the Arctic will go to the ports of destination - India (participates in the project), China (also exists), Southeast Asia, etc. I'm not talking about Europe - it is closer and easier with it. And all these ships will need to be protected along the entire route, ensuring the SAFETY of our maritime trade.
    This is the interest of CORPORATIONS.
    And in the Russian Federation, it is they who rule the show.
    And since they need it, then it will be.
    That is why two UDC VIs with a capacity of 40 tons are under construction.
    And after them, it is quite possible that the AV of the middle VI will already be laid.
    Just because they are needed.
    Not to the couch dreamers.
    And not to the military from the General Staff.
    And not to Putin, for the sake of the parade.
    The fleet is needed for the security of trade of RUSSIAN CORPORATIONS.
    Therefore, a huge shipyard in Bolshoy Kamen is being completed.
    Therefore, another one of the same is being built on the Kola Peninsula.
    Therefore, new heavy and superheavy class nuclear icebreakers are being built in St. Petersburg.
    Therefore, in Arkhangelsk for more than 10 years there has been a training program for the Arctic - the Arctic University.
    Therefore, not having in fact a fleet, Russia is starting the construction of a naval base in Sudan.
    For the control and safety of shipping.
    And state corporations know how to shake the Power by the tail.
    And no examples of Israel, or from Israel ... will convince them.
  • Osipov9391
    Osipov9391 6 May 2021 12: 42
    -1
    Thus, almost all Russian commercial and fishing vessels sail under the Panamanian, Vietnamese and other flags, but not under the Russian flag.
    There are even shops where all the necessary ship equipment is sold. And interestingly enough, there are flags of every choice - from Panama to Mongolia, landlocked.
    And they take, and cling, not patriotic of course ...
    1. bayard
      bayard 6 May 2021 14: 42
      +1
      The question is not only about patriotism, but also about the fact that they do not pay taxes.
      It is necessary to have strict legislation and control over its implementation.
      But without corruption, such disgusting is not possible in principle.
      1. Osipov9391
        Osipov9391 6 May 2021 18: 40
        +2
        So there are shops such in all port cities where flags for every taste and choice. They buy, cling and go out to sea. For example, they fish in the Barents Sea using the Nigerian or Cambodian flag. And fish is often sold to Norway. So it is in the Far East. Those who allow it in a share.
  • nickname7
    nickname7 9 May 2021 14: 54
    0
    the commercial fleet of our oligarchs is offshore registered ...
    And does not bring ANY benefit or profit

    With this, and we must begin, the maritime powers actually took place as such at the expense of trade. The goal-setting of their elites is a commercial profit, which was invested in the construction of the fleet. The merchants support the military.
    And now it may be connected with globalization, but international businessmen, who are called Russian oligarchs, have a goal of withdrawing and exporting resources and avoiding taxes.
    A resource country not only does not need a fleet, but as Thatcher said, a large population is not needed.
    1. bayard
      bayard 9 May 2021 19: 22
      0
      Quote: nickname7
      This is where we need to start.

      So it seems that they have already begun - only Russian-built and REGISTRED ships are allowed to operate the NSR. This is for loading new shipyards with orders (and they are loaded for 10 - 15 years ahead), and for receiving taxes from them.
      And before the mighty and one of the world's largest merchant, commercial and fishing fleet of the USSR was successfully sold out in the early 90s. So now everything is being built from scratch. It is already under construction.
  • bandabas
    bandabas 6 May 2021 12: 15
    +5
    You're right. Only from the Kola Peninsula to the Kuriles, not only a fleet is needed, but also residents. It is the RESIDENTS! Not "shift workers" on GPC without rights, as the powers that be rubbed in on us. Residents who can safely work, serve, study and not worry about the future for themselves and their children. By the way, this applies to the entire territory of the country.
  • Nemchinov Vl
    Nemchinov Vl 7 May 2021 00: 33
    +1
    Quote: saigon
    one must be aware that the Northern Fleet needs ships that are, let's say, excellent in performance characteristics from the Pacific Fleet.
    and why excuse me ?! there ask post the same. Only for some in the Atlantic, and for others in the Pacific and Indian oceans ?! ... Do you think very different ships are needed there ?! and let's say project 22350 is not adequate for them ?! ... belay
  • Cowbra
    Cowbra 6 May 2021 07: 00
    -11%
    Quote: Thrifty
    The same Yankees have a fleet

    Just not enough brains. Zhorik is this Ford in good order? LCS OK? And where is Zyama? Ah, are they canning already?

    Tell me how their ships are there surf the Bolshoi Theater ousted at least China from the disputed South China Sea, but for now I will sleep laughing
    1. tlauicol
      tlauicol 6 May 2021 07: 17
      -3
      Better tell us how their border ships sail the Black Sea and the Amur Bay
      1. For example
        For example 6 May 2021 08: 01
        +11
        The author is engaged in verbiage.
        Apparently young.

        The army and navy are tools in the hands of politicians.
        The author proposes to deprive Russian politicians of this tool.

        Ukrainian? winked

        The author contrasts the fleet with the economy. This is at least unreasonable. And in fact, either stupidity or deliberate misleading readers.

        For example, such clever fellows can call Gagarin's flight unprofitable ..

        The fleet was destroyed during the 1917 revolution to the delight of Russia's opponents.
        As well as during the turmoil of 1991.
        And here the author is lying, saying that we ourselves destroyed the fleet because we wanted to eat.


        TU-160 was cut with US funding.

        We never had redundancy in the Navy.

        Without a fleet and army, we will lose not only the Kuriles, but also Kamchatka. And then a complete section of the Russian lands.

        And as soon as we began to revive the fleet, so immediately there were chisels that go to shit, proving the unreasonableness of construction.
        1. bayard
          bayard 6 May 2021 13: 25
          +6
          Quote: For example
          Ukrainian?

          bully Israel.
          He offers to take an example from him.
        2. Drugov
          Drugov 6 May 2021 16: 23
          -2
          Gagarin's flight was a breakthrough event of the century, what a breakthrough in the notoriously losing race of Avik construction?
    2. Kalmar
      Kalmar 6 May 2021 08: 03
      +8
      Quote: Cowbra
      Zhorik is this Ford in good order?

      Little by little they are brought up to condition. A large ship with a huge number of new notions: it is obvious that a lot of problems have emerged. It is possible to draw an analogy with how the Severodvinsk was brought up to condition in our country (and it is not clear whether they brought it up in the end or simply turned a blind eye to the problems).

      Quote: Cowbra
      LCS OK? And where is Zyama?

      This is more about the topic "they are mad about fat": when there is a lot of money, you can experiment with the form.
      1. Cowbra
        Cowbra 6 May 2021 08: 23
        -5
        Quote: Kalmar
        This is rather on the topic "they are crazy about fat": when there is a lot of money,

        You do not understand what I mean. Both Zhorik and Zyama with LCS - which is approximately why the US Navy has no dominance. That Zhorik - excuse me, but the catapult had to be run in on the ground, and not find out that it is so new that it is no good anywhere. Is this a stand, chtol? And if there is a stand, what kind of goblin was laid down right away, without having run in the first one?
        The money is gone, and now "the same Yankees do not have enough NIKHREN!" - contrary to the fairy tales that Berezhlivy sings here. Not enough - absolutely nichrome, and so much so that the money to fix the radar on the Fitzgerald stuck in the container ship was not enough, and no one even remembers when the piece of iron was covered. All the money went to wishlist-whistle-making like that aircraft carrier, when should it be in the ranks according to the plan? 4 years ago, but he can only start up an F-18 with a minimum load
        1. Kalmar
          Kalmar 6 May 2021 08: 31
          +2
          Quote: Cowbra
          That Zhorik - excuse me, but the catapult had to be run in on the ground, and not find out that it is so new that it is no good anywhere. Is this a stand, chtol? And if there is a stand, what kind of devil was laid down immediately, without running the first one?

          AV is being built for a long time, even for amers. Until the second "Ford" comes to a catapult, I think it will already be brought to mind. They have nowhere to hurry too much, a dozen aircraft carriers are already in service and will not be decommissioned soon.

          Quote: Cowbra
          "The same Yankees do not have enough NIKHREN!"

          Well, yes, so that we "did not have enough". You can be a lot ironic about this, but the fact remains: no one else has a fleet that is close in power anyway. And it will take a very long time for someone to have it: the PRC is moving in this direction, but it will still grow and grow. In these conditions, the Yankees may well afford to throw money on dubious projects, since the topics of kickbacks and cuts are also very respected by them.
          1. Cowbra
            Cowbra 6 May 2021 08: 41
            -6
            Quote: Kalmar
            Well, yes, so that we "did not have enough".

            Their doctrine is different, sharpened especially for the fleet. Well, aviation. The rest are scraps. It is understood that the fleet with aviation will sweep away everyone. W-well? To hell with him with Afgan, but the South China Sea is something that the fleet should decide, and what in the end? And in the end, because the money is asked ... the gentlemen for these ZyamoFords - they will re-qualify their own KMP now in disposable kamikaze, have you heard the new doctrine? Landing on the island of light infantry, with a launcher anti-ship missile. Bukh - and full of women in return. So it is precisely because of the inability to dominate in South Chinese !!! Against China they are being reformed like that!
            "So that we miss it so much" - this is how the author writes about it. Let's build a pair AB - we won't have enough for a dry path. No really. This way of development - when money goes to show-off - let it be IM. And further is not enough
            1. Cowbra
              Cowbra 7 May 2021 01: 20
              -1
              Waterfowl scraps - can you comment on your cons, or so - blasted and disappeared?
  • EvilLion
    EvilLion 6 May 2021 08: 56
    -6
    And we have enough missiles for both the Americans and the Chinese.
    1. Fan-fan
      Fan-fan 6 May 2021 15: 26
      0
      Enough? Allegation. Is it hard to compare the number of cruise missiles in the United States and ours?
      1. Igor Kobernik
        Igor Kobernik 7 May 2021 10: 58
        +1
        Do you know this?
  • Artemion3
    Artemion3 6 May 2021 19: 20
    +1
    For amers, aircraft carriers are a vital component of defense, and they had them 50 years ago. In our case, we need submarines, destroyers and airfields for basic aviation.
  • Igor Kobernik
    Igor Kobernik 7 May 2021 10: 57
    -3
    "China". in fact, with a capital letter ... Apparently, by education, they have not gone too far from the "author" ... The article is stupid, to say the least ... Question to VO - how long are graduates, at best , "shabby" colleges, will publish their nonsense in you?
  • mark1
    mark1 6 May 2021 05: 18
    +10
    The fleet is needed not only to ensure its economic interests, but also to destroy aliens (I will simply keep silent about the forces of strategic nuclear forces and anti-aircraft missile defense). The possibility of blocking important world strategic communications (disrupting economic exchange and disrupting the transfer of troops) sharply increases the country's geopolitical position. What is the role of aircraft carriers? Probably it has a place to be, but in the near future I do not see it as significant for our country, (unlike the submarine fleet)
    1. Kalmar
      Kalmar 6 May 2021 08: 06
      +3
      Quote: mark1
      What is the role of aircraft carriers?

      As one of the options - reconnaissance and target designation. As a result - the possibility of real application of the same "Zircons" with which we are going to scare the Yankes. Now everything is very vague with us: there is only "Liana", which is far from omnipotent.
    2. Fan-fan
      Fan-fan 6 May 2021 15: 33
      +2
      I support you, you correctly named the most important goal for the fleet - to cut communications, which, for example, the Germans were actively engaged in during the Second World War. It is necessary to cut not only the supply of property, but also the information cables running along the bottom of the Atlantic.
      Well, another important goal was announced to us here long ago - the protection of the SSBN.
  • Sahalinets
    Sahalinets 6 May 2021 05: 23
    +2
    I suspect that Rosstat data on cargo turnover applies to all cargo in general. But if you look at export-import, the picture will be different. And if you really apply your mind, the share of maritime transport will grow. After all, all these pipelines tie us to the only and no alternative buyer, which leads to low prices for our main product.
  • Pessimist22
    Pessimist22 6 May 2021 05: 23
    +8
    “Thus, the very fact that we have extremely powerful armed forces or the fleet in isolation is not a strategic factor that can turn the tide in favor of a stronger side. How the presence of muscles and physical fitness does not allow us to solve all everyday issues through the use of physical force or blackmail, and military power on the scale of international politics does not allow it to be used against any rival. "
    What nonsense have I read? And further, "Big politics doesn't require a large fleet, friends." This is probably why the G7 countries have a large fleet. smile
    1. antivirus
      antivirus 6 May 2021 07: 49
      -7
      I propose to deduct 15% of your income to the AB building fund. I will dig in the country and spend money on shovels and other pribluda.
      DEVELOPMENT OF ITS ABANDONED TERRITORIES-ARCHIVAL BUSINESS, not even 12 agglomerations, millionaires.
      it is necessary to build new roads and bridges, keep the old ones next to them, and remember about fords and country roads.
      do all villages have asphalt ... roads?
      1. For example
        For example 6 May 2021 08: 53
        +2
        They will come and squeeze out your dacha. Together with shovels
        The Germans came and burned everything and everyone.
        The Americans were also in civilian service.

        Where will you run to complain about the lawlessness?
        1. antivirus
          antivirus 6 May 2021 10: 15
          -2
          and your 15% fund will also be devoured. poke.
          everyone pays income and other taxes. I do not like it, write (to you, I haven’t started to respect anymore, so far) to the Kremlin, to Putin.
          generally your (all) minuses on the drum, namely, Putin is not building yet AB.
          if he gives a command, then this is his achievement and your (all) defeat.
          minus him put, for the work of the Commander-in-Chief .... the opposition? or contra?
        2. Sergey Kulikov_3
          Sergey Kulikov_3 6 May 2021 16: 24
          0
          Still, you need to figure it out, will they come or will sail on an aircraft carrier to the dacha?
  • Yuri V.A
    Yuri V.A 6 May 2021 05: 24
    +5
    The author urges to fully develop, including international relations, and what will guarantee the reliability of these relations, after all, not every country is ready to provide a pledge?
    1. Anzhey V.
      6 May 2021 21: 54
      -3
      The author urges to fully develop, including international relations, and what will guarantee the reliability of these relations, after all, not every country is ready to provide a pledge?


      This is a question of more than one comment and even an article)

      In short: the best guarantor of relations is the economy. But not a simple trade, but a consistent economic expansion.

      If you are interested, then similar processes are well described here https://topwar.ru/182200-stalnaja-hvatka-mjagkoj-sily-turcija-v-gruzii.html
  • Revolver
    Revolver 6 May 2021 05: 35
    +7
    If China wants to attack the Russian Federation, it will not fail to do so not only along the entire land border, but also on the Pacific coast. Yes, and the land border goes along the Amur River for a considerable length, and the Amur Flotilla cannot be considered a land force. Afftap believes that the Pacific Fleet and the Amur Flotilla can be put on pins and needles? All the same, neither Vladivostok, let alone the Amur, are the main transport routes of the country, if we follow the statistics given in the article.
    By the way, I don’t remember who said, and the quote literally, but it’s very correct: "There are lies, blatant lies, and statistics."
    1. soul
      soul 6 May 2021 07: 45
      +25
      Quote: Nagan
      By the way, I don’t remember who said, and the quote literally, but it’s very correct: "There are lies, blatant lies, and statistics."

      "There are three kinds of lies ..."
      By the way, the Amur Flotilla, as such, has long been absent.
  • Essex62
    Essex62 6 May 2021 05: 49
    0
    There is a common sense in the article. The economy of the Russian pipe has nothing to promote and protect at sea. What is built and is being built is almost enough for coastal defense. Emphasis should be placed on improving missile systems for the last salvo at the habitats of the Freemasons. It is better to revive the BZHRK by equipping it with hypersound. A sufficient deterrent.
    1. soul
      soul 6 May 2021 07: 48
      +20
      Quote: Essex62
      for the last salvo at the habitats of the Freemasons

      First you need to decide where these Masons are. And then suddenly it turns out that you can't shoot there.
      1. Essex62
        Essex62 7 May 2021 07: 24
        +1
        Why can't this be? If you say that they are with us, then this is not true. All this "getting up from his knees" began with the fact that our brothers were not accepted into the Masons. But notice the red-haired beholder, from them, as before, the Yeltsin Center, which was crawling on its knees and dancing in front of them, is standing.
        And if about their children, then there will be no choice. These guys from the 90s are still capable of the reverse, they were born in the Union. The next ones are unlikely.
    2. timokhin-aa
      timokhin-aa 6 May 2021 13: 03
      +1
      Why people like you can never see the statistics?
      1. Essex62
        Essex62 7 May 2021 07: 32
        +1
        You tell me, dear Timokhin?
        I already wrote to you, this time we will not take Berlin, even with a useless fleet of the open sea, even without. Decomposed - with. Mobreserv is absent in principle. Selfishness is flourishing. We have no one to work even on construction sites, Tajiks plow, not to defend their homeland. The wrestlers turned out to be quite practical guys and develop, on our modest income, exactly what will allow them to take the other side with them when they die.
        1. timokhin-aa
          timokhin-aa 7 May 2021 10: 01
          +1
          Yes to you.

          Look at the statistics on exports and how these exports are exported, where are they exported, etc.

          Always CHECK your statements.

          We don't need to take Berlin, we can just burn it at a distance, for that matter. The target is stationary, will not run away anywhere.
          1. Essex62
            Essex62 7 May 2021 14: 32
            0
            Looked. Nothing compared to a high-tech product from the West and China. There is nothing for us beyond the seas - to protect with okiyans. USSR Brezhnev, clumsily and lazily, tried to export socialism. The fleet was necessary, now it is only pointless expenses. And about the rasstoyanie- you are seriously considering the fight between the Russian Federation and NATO, with conventional, non-nuclear weapons, and hope to win. That's why you stand up for FOM, don't you? Groundless hopes, potential are not comparable, so that the patriots do not shout. Only together with them to paradise. Therefore, the emphasis should be on highly mobile systems with a high level of secrecy, so that UAGs that come close, as you wrote hi did not cover all our circulation at once.
            1. timokhin-aa
              timokhin-aa 11 May 2021 21: 11
              -1
              About nothing, in comparison with the high-tech product of the West and China.


              What does the West and China have to do with it? Do you want to assess the importance of this export for our economy? It is stupid to compare us, if that is ten times less than the Chinese.
  • Andrei from Chelyabinsk
    Andrei from Chelyabinsk 6 May 2021 06: 23
    +20
    Fourth, paradoxically, there is practically no naval threat to Russia.

    Indeed, it is paradoxical. The alternative universe in which the author lives is very interesting.
    What do you see? The share of sea cargo transportation in our country (this includes, by the way, indicators of import and export) is even lower than the share of road transport!

    Uh-huh. Author, would you take a look at similar shares of the US transportation system
    32% is accounted for by rail, 24,5 - by road, 18 - by sea, 14 - by pipeline, 11 - by inland waterways and 0,5% - by air transport.
    Why do Americans need a fleet? They transport more by cars than by sea! They need to develop land forces!
    Author, write urgently a petition to the US Congress ...
    1. The comment was deleted.
    2. Sandor Clegane
      Sandor Clegane 6 May 2021 07: 22
      +9
      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
      Author, write urgently a petition to the US Congress ...

      I'm sure he has it already
    3. vvvjak
      vvvjak 6 May 2021 08: 12
      +8
      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
      Uh-huh. Author, would you take a look at similar shares of the US transportation system
      32% is accounted for by rail, 24,5 - by road, 18 - by sea, 14 - by pipeline, 11 - by inland waterways and 0,5% - by air transport.

      Keep

      Based on the author's thesis about cargo transportation, only China and Brazil need a fleet
      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 6 May 2021 08: 36
        +12
        Quote: vvvjak
        Based on the author's thesis about cargo transportation, only China and Brazil need a fleet

        What an excellent plot - the clash of the Chinese and Brazilian nuclear-powered aircraft carriers somewhere in the middle of the Indian Ocean ... laughing
        The author URGENTLY needs to visit the site of alternative history :))))
        1. vvvjak
          vvvjak 6 May 2021 08: 45
          +8
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          The author URGENTLY needs to visit the site of alternative history :))))

          And the author shouldn't have mentioned Peter the Great. Based on his own logic, he certainly should not have thought about the fleet at all, because. at the beginning of Peter's reign, Russia, in fact, had no access to the seas.

          There are no seas - why the fleet?
          1. EvilLion
            EvilLion 6 May 2021 08: 58
            -1
            Under Peter I, it was necessary to integrate into trade across the Baltic, a very specific task for which they fought for 21 years. In principle, Peter I did not set any tasks for a showdown in the Atlantic, or in the Sumatra region.
            1. vvvjak
              vvvjak 6 May 2021 09: 30
              +6
              Quote: EvilLion
              it was necessary to integrate into trade

              Who needs? Peter or the merchants? Those. there was an economic need to build a fleet and "cut" a window to Europe. And that now there is no economic expediency to increase the circle of trading partners at the expense of "overseas" countries?
              Quote: EvilLion
              for which they fought for 21 years.

              We fought for so many years, put a lot of resources on the construction of the fleet, laid the whole city (created infrastructure, in a modern way) why is everything so complicated and costly? Or maybe you just had to fill the roads and raise herds of horses? The author (as I understand it) offers to go the last way. But what would have happened to Russia (at the present time) if not for this Peter's "window" to Europe and the fleet?
              1. EvilLion
                EvilLion 6 May 2021 11: 00
                -1
                Go study history, and then think about how sharp your "jokes" really are. As for trade now, then, firstly, what are you going to sell and to whom, secondly, if you want to supply to South America, say, the products of the glorious automobile plant KAMAZ, then the main price there is the manufacture of the actual product as a high-level product , and not delivery, which in the time of Peter I was a feat, and all sorts of overseas goods, which are now common, cost fabulous money precisely because of the transportation.
                1. vvvjak
                  vvvjak 6 May 2021 11: 37
                  +5
                  Quote: EvilLion
                  Go study history

                  The standard answer when there are no arguments.
                  Quote: EvilLion
                  and then think how much your "sharpness"

                  What kind of "witticisms" we are talking about, I do not understand much.
                  Quote: EvilLion
                  As for the trade now,

                  And who tells you "about now"? Do you see your further existence outside the Russian Federation or "lived a day and was good"? Peter's decision (expensive, resource-intensive, etc.) to build a fleet predetermined the development of Russia for many centuries to come and actually brought the country into the category of geopolitical players on the world stage. This historical example rather refutes the arguments of the author of the article. It is for this reason that I wrote:
                  And the author shouldn't have mentioned Peter the Great.
                2. timokhin-aa
                  timokhin-aa 6 May 2021 13: 06
                  +4
                  to deliver to South America, say, the products of the glorious KAMAZ automobile plant, then the main price there is the manufacture of the product itself, as a high-level product, and not delivery


                  Yes, but I was engaged in such things, including with KAMAZ trucks.
                  And I can say that delivery to distant places where it is impossible to deliver the goods without a couple of transshipments will reach 50% of the price of the car in some cases.
                  1. EvilLion
                    EvilLion 6 May 2021 14: 41
                    +1
                    Well, there will be a task to supply 100 thousand KAMAZ trucks, then there will be a question of our own merchant ships, so as not to charter, and maybe even warships, in order to protect these merchants.
                    1. timokhin-aa
                      timokhin-aa 6 May 2021 19: 30
                      +1
                      Yes, I see you are even less versed in international trade than in naval affairs.
                      You should ALWAYS miss the mark. An anti-talent, however.
                      1. EvilLion
                        EvilLion 11 May 2021 08: 06
                        0
                        Well, if you think that I do not understand, then after your statement I was only convinced that I was right.
                      2. timokhin-aa
                        timokhin-aa 11 May 2021 21: 13
                        -1
                        In this century, the largest single delivery is 10000 dump trucks to Iran. Chinese, of course.
                        What are you talking about 100000 KAMAZ vehicles?
            2. Anzhey V.
              6 May 2021 11: 03
              -4
              The author (as I understand it) offers to go the last way


              The author proposes to develop the infrastructure and really significant areas of the defense industry. And the author also proposes to "cut the window" using modern methods, and not by sending squadrons of cruisers.

              Doesn't the situation with Sudan mean anything to you?
              1. vvvjak
                vvvjak 6 May 2021 12: 03
                +4
                Quote: Anjay V.
                Doesn't the situation with Sudan mean anything to you?

                It is the same as with the Crimea, Syria, the Arctic, the Caspian - control of communication routes (let's say one of the purposes), only in a "rudimentary" state. And there is no way without the fleet.
                Quote: Anjay V.
                the author proposes to "cut the window" with modern methods

                An integrated approach is needed here. Here the Americans use PMCs, the navy, the army, special services, sanctions, the media, politics, etc.
                1. Artyom Karagodin
                  Artyom Karagodin 6 May 2021 13: 59
                  +5
                  Quote: vvvjak
                  An integrated approach is needed here. Here the Americans use PMCs, the navy, the army, special services, sanctions, the media, politics, etc.

                  Just about, and the author thinks that if he has an excellent file in his hands, then you can do without pliers, and without hammers, and without everything else. For me personally, this analogy suggests itself in connection with what I read. Putting all the eggs in one basket = lose. This is, damn it, ABC !!!
                2. Essex62
                  Essex62 7 May 2021 15: 34
                  0
                  Syria is a priority task only in the context of the pipe economy. The buyers of the margin are driving the development of all state programs and this has nothing to do with the people of the Russian Federation. Of course, if the enemies let the pipeline go through Syria, it will be difficult for everyone, but to call such bourgeois showdowns the interests of the people of Russia is somehow not comme il faut. Build a fleet for the sake of this, and not bold, and so it will be bold. The Russian Federation has no goods other than fossil products, which should be pushed into the market by force, and this market is alien to us. It's time to restore the fence.
  • Anzhey V.
    6 May 2021 10: 38
    -8


    No question, here is the Russian statistics of loading by type of transport.

    Author, would you take a look at similar shares of the US transportation system


    This is due solely to the method of counting - they are counted not by real sea trade, but by the flag of the vessel. It is necessary to look at the statistics of port cargo turnover.

    But you, as always, start to grimace. However, I don't expect anything new from a man who frightens everyone with volleys of Tomahawks (for thirty years everyone has been frightening and frightening, but they will not come in any way. Wrong, Kuznetsov stops them), I do not expect.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 6 May 2021 11: 56
      +7
      Quote: Anjay V.
      This is due solely to the method of counting - they are counted not by real sea trade, but by the flag of the vessel. It is necessary to look at the statistics of port cargo turnover.

      So look, instead of embarrassing yourself here.
      Total in the worldaccording to the Port Guide Fairplay, there are about 9400 seaports and terminals, the total cargo turnover of all seaports of the world in 2005 is estimated by UNCTAD at 14,23 billion tons.
      ALL PORTS OF THE WORLD.
      I did not find the turnover of US vehicles in 2005, but according to the Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS), in 2013, the country was transported by road 12,66 billion tons of cargo
      That is, the freight turnover of US vehicles alone is comparable to ALL world sea trade :)))
      Quote: Anjay V.
      But you, as always, start to grimace.

      Well, don't be so offended. Just, next time, think before you write such nonsense in an article.
      1. Anzhey V.
        6 May 2021 12: 04
        -11%
        Offended? Excuse me, your "precious opinion" does not bother me.

        That is, the freight turnover of US vehicles alone is comparable to the ALL world maritime trade.


        AND? Once again, you decided to take the conversation as far as possible from the topic, congratulations, you did it.

        Just, next time, think before you write such nonsense in an article.


        Dismiss, your "precious opinion" does not bother me (c)
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          Andrei from Chelyabinsk 6 May 2021 12: 15
          +8
          Quote: Anjay V.
          Excuse me, your "precious opinion" does not bother me.

          Yes, it's as much as you like :) You wrote nonsense, I debunked it, and not for your sake, of course, but for the sake of the readers. I'm not writing for you, for some reason you are screaming
          Quote: Anjay V.
          Dismiss, your "precious opinion" does not bother me (c)

          Climb to my comments :)
          1. Anzhey V.
            6 May 2021 12: 20
            -13%
            I answer almost everyone and always.

            And you successfully debunked only your lack of logic and arguments. But, however, for the fans from your sect of the New Coming of the Fleet and this is enough, they are not too pretentious people)
            1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              Andrei from Chelyabinsk 6 May 2021 12: 42
              +5
              Quote: Anjay V.
              And you successfully debunked only your lack of logic and arguments.

              Yeah. And the main thesis of your article on the relationship between the ratio of sea / land transport volumes and the need for a fleet :))))
              1. Anzhey V.
                6 May 2021 12: 59
                -6
                the main thesis of your article


                He invented it himself, blurted it out himself, he himself rejoices.
                You have outdone yourself today, congratulations.

                Unfortunately, you did not understand either the main thesis or the article itself, and therefore could not debunk anything.

                If you so desperately want to refute something - tell us whether the fleet can exist in isolation from economic expediency. It will be very interesting to listen to.
                1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                  Andrei from Chelyabinsk 6 May 2021 13: 23
                  +5
                  Quote: Anjay V.
                  Figured it out myself,

                  Yeah, me :)))
                  So, for the sake of protecting how great sea lanes does Russia need to sacrifice its real interests and build an even larger navy, which in fact has nothing to defend?
                  ...
                  The above statistics of cargo transportation only once again confirms this long-known truth.

                  If there are no economic interests, then there is nothing to defend.

                  The Internet remembers everything :)))
                  Quote: Anjay V.
                  Unfortunately, you did not understand either the main thesis or the article itself

                  But where can we, sirim, keep up with your intellect :)))) The cornerstone stupidity that you wrote lies in your erroneous idea that the fleet is needed to protect sea communications and for nothing else. Moreover, from this fundamentally erroneous postulate, you deduce everything else.
                  1. Silhouette
                    Silhouette 6 May 2021 21: 24
                    +1
                    Andrey, in your article about the need for aircraft carriers, you stumbled on the very first point - the absence of designated national (state) interests of the country of Russia. In this article, the author has convincingly shown the following: in the absence of interests, there can be no policy that the fleet could implement with the help of aircraft carriers. And this is the second "stumbling" in the aircraft carrier theme. This would be followed by the impossibility of basing aircraft carriers in our geographical conditions, the inability to competently operate, etc.
                    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 6 May 2021 22: 43
                      +3
                      Quote: Silhouette
                      Andrey, in your article about the need for aircraft carriers, you stumbled on the very first point - the absence of designated national (state) interests of the country of Russia.

                      Well, let's just cancel all the aircraft as unnecessary - in this matter, they are in exactly the same position as aircraft carriers.
                      The fact that national interests are not indicated does not mean that they are absent.
                      Quote: Silhouette
                      In this article, the author convincingly

                      :)))))
                      Quote: Silhouette
                      showed the following: in the absence of interests, there can be no policy that the fleet could implement with the help of aircraft carriers.

                      I described how the policy is implemented with the help of AB in my article. You, forgive me, are now refuting reality - in your opinion, since the designated interests of the Russian Federation are not in the documents, then there are no interests either. What are we doing in Syria then? :)))
                    2. Liam
                      Liam 6 May 2021 22: 49
                      +2
                      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                      how the policy is implemented with the help of AB, I told in my article

                      Oh yeah ... rescuing Private Gaddafi with an aircraft carrier? It was a masterpiece)
          2. Artyom Karagodin
            Artyom Karagodin 6 May 2021 19: 03
            +4
            Andrey, do I understand correctly that you have written down everyone who disagrees with your arguments regarding the fleet as fools? It doesn’t look like you.
            1. Anzhey V.
              6 May 2021 21: 52
              -2
              Andrey, do I understand correctly that you have written down everyone who disagrees with your arguments regarding the fleet as fools? It doesn’t look like you.


              In no case. I will never in any way hurt someone else's point of view, if an adequate dialogue is being conducted with me. Note that I speak politely and tactfully to everyone, regardless of their mood.

              But I do not like disputants for the sake of argument and holy believers, I will not deny here.
      2. KKND
        KKND 6 May 2021 12: 47
        +2
        And you backed up your "precious opinion" with statistics. Which suggests that your opinion is not even a blatant lie, but even worse.
  • Artyom Karagodin
    Artyom Karagodin 6 May 2021 13: 52
    +3
    The most interesting thing is that Andrzej is much smarter than the same Voskresensky. And he wrote very competent publications about, for example, Turkish "soft power", and not only. But there he was deeply buried in the material, and the article under discussion is an example of superficiality. Why, before discussing the need-uselessness of AB, it was impossible to study the materiel as thoroughly - a mystery to me.
    1. Anzhey V.
      6 May 2021 21: 49
      -2
      The most interesting thing is that Andrzej is much smarter than the same Voskresensky


      I will take you by surprise - this is one person laughing

      the article under discussion is an example of superficiality. Why, before discussing the need-uselessness of AB, it was impossible to study the materiel as thoroughly - a mystery to me.


      Artem, I never had a goal to write super-detailed articles. All these are extremely complex topics (including “soft power”) that require scientific work.

      This publication is a simple and straightforward explanation with a few simple messages that rely on a basic strategy, not narrowly focused military scenarios. Actually, I do not even declare any conclusions for the reader - let him decide what is true and what is not.

      And I see that she found a response among many - yes, the comments are shamelessly overwhelmed by members of the local "naval sect", but even through this riot, it is noticeable how many have drawn conclusions for themselves.
      1. The comment was deleted.
        1. Anzhey V.
          6 May 2021 22: 00
          0
          That is, did you write about the fact that we need to build the Tu-160 instead of the ocean-going fleet? Indeed, they were dumbfounded.


          You confuse me with Alexander Vorontsov)
          1. Artyom Karagodin
            Artyom Karagodin 6 May 2021 22: 08
            0
            I beg your pardon, initially I confused you with him. Where he said that you are smarter than "Voskresensky" laughing, should not have been your surname. Overworked, apparently wassat... The comment was deleted.
            1. Anzhey V.
              6 May 2021 22: 14
              -1
              It's okay, Artem, we figured it out)

              My views on the fleet are set out like this - https://topwar.ru/181195-aviacija-kak-glavnaja-udarnaja-sila-rossijskogo-flota.html

              And I never called for its destruction, but I think that it needs a different conceptual niche in our realities.
              1. Artyom Karagodin
                Artyom Karagodin 6 May 2021 22: 47
                +1
                Quote: Anjay V.
                then he needs a different conceptual niche in our realities.

                If it is different than now, then hardly anyone will argue with this laughing.

                But why did you decide that AB's supporters insist that we do not need base and naval missile-carrying aircraft? No, it’s not. It's just that sometimes planes are needed not only on their shores, but also on the distant approaches to them, where you cannot reach from the coast. The conventional Tu-22M3 needs fighter escort. Fighters have a smaller radius, they need tankers. And who will provide the control center? In the short term, satellites are simply not able to cover all directions. You can get away from them. It’s not on the GSO to display them, the right word!

                In a word, it comes out not at all cheaper than the AB, which, by the way, is much more difficult to knock out than a land airfield. If only because it is constantly moving. And then, Soviet AVs were built for a different concept, these were air defense ships, even the atomic "Ulyanovsk" was sharpened for this. And we don't have to copy the American experience. By the way, the Israeli too, since their coastline and their set of adversaries along the borders cannot be compared with ours.
  • nikvic46
    nikvic46 6 May 2021 06: 33
    +3
    If you follow the author's logic, it turns out that those who sold 60% of the Pacific Fleet and the entire fishing fleet were right. But in China there are aircraft carriers. "And these are my galoshes .." Every screw and every nut must be involved in the defense of the country. Of course, aircraft carriers are not needed in small seas. But before, we even needed ordinary stuffed seiners, and if we wonder what is profitable and what is not, then it may turn out that unprofitable will not be enough in a hard time.
    1. EvilLion
      EvilLion 6 May 2021 09: 00
      -1
      You know, you should read about the ridiculous history of the German high seas fleet, after the defeat in WWI.

      In a hard time, there may not be enough aircraft, or tanks, but certainly not ships.
      1. timokhin-aa
        timokhin-aa 6 May 2021 13: 08
        +5
        How to get to Tokyo by tanks? How to disrupt a missile attack by American SSBNs with tanks? How to use tanks to scare a Brita near Gibraltar?
        1. EvilLion
          EvilLion 6 May 2021 14: 53
          +1
          About the same way as to disrupt it with one or two aircraft divers. However, the Americans, who were going to bomb the USSR with atomic bombs, somehow did not start the war, despite the absence of smooth-deck troughs in the USSR and Russia. Apparently, they are hindered by something else. For example, the presence of a huge number of mobile missile systems and highly protected silos guaranteeing that hundreds of missiles will fly back in any case, and the United States, after the loss of fifty of its largest cities, as a state, will no longer survive.

          In the case of Tokyo, I'll tell you the news, but American tanks never reached Tokyo at one time, but Japan, nevertheless, capitulated.

          You do not even know by what means the problems in which the troughs supposedly should help you, have been successfully solved for decades.

          And yes, why, when telling the fantasy about the troughs going from the Arctic Ocean to the Mediterranean and Red Seas, you diligently forgot about the Brita in Gibraltar, although I remember mentioning this factor, and that the passage to the Mediterranean from the Atlantic itself is not guaranteed. Believe me, the Britashka will not be afraid of one trough. And tanks really will not be able to help there without conquering all of Europe.
          1. timokhin-aa
            timokhin-aa 6 May 2021 19: 40
            +2
            Apparently, they are hindered by something else. For example, the presence of a huge number of mobile missile systems and highly protected silos guaranteeing that hundreds of missiles will fly back in any case, and the United States, after the loss of fifty of its largest cities, as a state, will no longer survive.


            You need to change the color of the pony. As for "hindering", then look how it will hinder them in the 2030s, when there will be a question of merging with the world arena forever or the whole world in dust.
            By the way, they are working very intensively on the PGRK problem, and there are successes.

            In the case of Tokyo, I'll tell you the news, but American tanks never reached Tokyo at one time, but Japan, nevertheless, capitulated.


            So she surrendered because of the American Navy. Because of the airplane dwellers, as you call it.

            You do not even know by what means the problems in which the troughs supposedly should help you, have been successfully solved for decades.


            They do not dare at all, in any way, if the Americans decide to strike along a short trajectory from Mediterranean, Barentsukhi and the Pacific Ocean, then at our current level nothing will hold them back, their flight time is at least 1,5 times less than our time for the passage of the command to counter-counter (I KNOW him, if that).
            It's just that they have nothing to finish off the PGRK with, and there is no reason to risk it.
            But according to the PGRK they solve the problem, and the reasons for them will soon appear.

            And yes, why, when telling the fantasy about the troughs going from the Arctic Ocean to the Mediterranean and Red Seas, you diligently forgot about the Brita in Gibraltar, although I remember mentioning this factor, and that the passage to the Mediterranean from the Atlantic itself is not guaranteed.


            We have a permanent grouping in Mediterranean and a base there, if anything.
            There would be something to fight.
            1. EvilLion
              EvilLion 11 May 2021 08: 14
              0
              So she surrendered because of the American Navy. Because of the airplane dwellers, as you call it.


              You may not have noticed, but the Pacific Ocean is located between the United States and Japan, and these states could not come into contact without a fleet in the 1940s. But from us to Japan, in fact, a puddle, which modern aircraft can fly over, which at cruise mode are 2-3 times faster than their WWII counterparts and carry many times more payload, so there are no problems in bombing Tokyo taking off from the Central Corner no.

              Aircraft carriers became completely obsolete with the advent of the Su-27, which made it possible for tactical aircraft to hit targets at a distance of 1000 km from the home airfield, and without refueling.

              how will it hinder them in the 2030s, when there will be a question of merging with the world arena forever or the whole world in dust.


              In the same way, one should not assume that the United States must inevitably die, and therefore must start a nuclear war, it is not the first time that they have problems, and not the last, like ours. We were written off three times only in the 20th century, but Russia has not gone anywhere.
              1. timokhin-aa
                timokhin-aa 11 May 2021 21: 15
                0
                But from us to Japan, in fact, a puddle, which modern aircraft can fly over, which at cruise mode are 2-3 times faster than their counterparts during the WWII


                Somehow you famously dozens of ships with the most powerful air defense systems and all the F-15Js were written off, like the Japanese AWACS planes. Will modern planes get sick there?

                Well, everything else is in the same spirit.
        2. Anzhey V.
          6 May 2021 21: 42
          +1
          How to get to Tokyo by tanks? How to disrupt a missile attack by American SSBNs with tanks? How to use tanks to scare a Brita near Gibraltar?


          How can the fleet protect the construction of the Nord Stream? Why couldn't the fleet recapture the base in Sudan for us? And how did the fleet prevent Turkey from taking the territories of Syria and Armenia allied to us? How to defend Central Asia with the help of ships?
          1. timokhin-aa
            timokhin-aa 7 May 2021 02: 02
            0
            You are trying to make it appear as if the navy and soft power contradict each other.
  • Vladimir_2U
    Vladimir_2U 6 May 2021 06: 36
    +10
    A fleet that is enough to defend its own coast - and for everything else, there is missile weapons and aircraft.
    Neither the concept of a rapid massive non-nuclear strike with high-precision missiles, moreover from the sea direction, nor several aircraft carrier groups capable of striking from at least a thousand kilometers is directed against Israel, is not a very example in general.

    Fourth, paradoxically, the naval threat to Russia is practically absent: the United States and Great Britain are actively engaged in containing China and plan to keep the main detachment of forces in the Indo-Pacific region, Africa and the Middle East. For our country, there are already more than enough threats from land - both from the European and Chinese borders.
    The author has long shown himself to be promoting the interests of the United States and its allies on the site.
    1. Sandor Clegane
      Sandor Clegane 6 May 2021 08: 10
      +8
      Quote: Vladimir_2U
      The author has long shown himself to be promoting the interests of the United States and its allies on the site.

      rather, the author showed a one-sided biased position that panders to the interests of the West and I am very glad that the author cannot influence all these processes
      1. Vladimir_2U
        Vladimir_2U 6 May 2021 08: 16
        +9
        Quote: Sandor Clegane
        rather, the author showed a one-sided bias

        This is not the only article of the author, in other materials his position is quite visible.
        1. Sandor Clegane
          Sandor Clegane 6 May 2021 08: 19
          +1
          Quote: Vladimir_2U
          in other materials, his position is quite visible.

          belay very interesting, it will be necessary to look at his publications ... angry
    2. Anzhey V.
      6 May 2021 10: 21
      -4
      The author has long shown himself to be promoting the interests of the United States and its allies on the site.


      So be it, the award "Honored Chekist" is yours, comrade!

      The Motherland thanks you for your vigilance and do not forget to drink valerian! laughing
      1. Vladimir_2U
        Vladimir_2U 6 May 2021 10: 35
        +7
        Quote: Anjay V.
        The Motherland thanks you for your vigilance and do not forget to drink valerian!

        What Motherland are you speaking on behalf of? wink
        1. Anzhey V.
          6 May 2021 10: 40
          -5
          Russia, of course. Do you have some other homeland?
          1. Vladimir_2U
            Vladimir_2U 6 May 2021 10: 45
            +8
            Quote: Anjay V.
            Russia, of course.

            It is strange that you understand the interests of Russia, and that is why I am interested.

            Quote: Anjay V.
            Do you have some other homeland?
            And I have Russia.
            1. Anzhey V.
              6 May 2021 10: 59
              -1
              It is strange that you understand the interests of Russia, and that is why I am interested.


              No, I understand Russia's interests as it should.

              I want to see my country as the first among equals - a country with a modern approach and modern thinking.

              We no longer live in the USSR; we have a monstrously low demographic and industrial potential. The country is surrounded on all sides - and not surrounded by the sea.

              We need to learn to be flexible, cunning. States are now competing not in total firepower, but in the depth of analyzing the situation, speed and efficiency of decision-making - and mediocre militarists who dream of playing ships only drag the country into the past, leading it to a deliberate defeat.

              So I will write articles about the pointlessness of the fleet and I do not care about stupid accusations that I "work for the interests of the Americans." You'd better think about the fact that the real enemies of the country would first of all begin to push it towards an arms race ...
              1. Vladimir_2U
                Vladimir_2U 6 May 2021 11: 36
                +4
                Quote: Anjay V.
                No, I understand Russia's interests as it should.
                How the United States should do it, in any case, it is very similar.

                Quote: Anjay V.
                States are now competing not in total firepower, but in the depth of the analysis of the situation, the speed and efficiency of decision-making
                Relying on firepower. And this mantra about "state competition" reveals a lot. Roughly like the competition between a pack of wolves and a very smart and even cunning, but not armed traveler. It seems to me that you want to see Russia as such a traveler, despite the fact that wolves will not remove teeth either by agreement or on their own initiative.
                1. Anzhey V.
                  6 May 2021 12: 44
                  -2
                  How the United States should do it, in any case, it is very similar.


                  You talk so much and know about US interests ... isn't it a foreign intelligence agent by chance?

                  It seems to me that you want to see Russia as such a traveler, despite the fact that wolves will not remove teeth either by agreement or on their own initiative.


                  This is your personal opinion and inability to understand the topics that I am raising. The likes of you every time arrange a roar in the comments, not bothering at least some superficial analysis of what you read.

                  I admit it's frustrating, but okay.

                  And a traveler on the road needs a rifle, flint, sturdy shoes and food, and not an inflatable boat, comrade.
                  1. Vladimir_2U
                    Vladimir_2U 7 May 2021 02: 58
                    -1
                    Quote: Anjay V.
                    This is your personal opinion and inability to understand the topics that I raise
                    Do not exaggerate either the complexity of the topics of your articles, much less the depth of analysis.

                    Quote: Anjay V.
                    And a traveler on the road needs a rifle, flint, sturdy shoes and food, and not an inflatable boat, comrade.
                    By an inflatable boat you mean missile-carrying ships armed with nuclear weapons and aircraft in any way?
              2. Aleksandr21
                Aleksandr21 6 May 2021 12: 29
                +5
                Quote: Anjay V.
                You'd better think about the fact that the real enemies of the country would first of all begin to push it towards an arms race ...


                Real enemies, would offer to disarm ... and would say that there is nothing to worry about (as the Americans do with the missile defense system in Europe), and then, these "friends" would help with Crimea, the Kuril Islands and other territories, on which is home to a small number of people (as you rightly noted) but a lot of resources ... and of course, Russia needs to develop, invest in infrastructure, deal with demographic problems, etc. but you shouldn't forget about safety either, i.e. balance is needed here.

                PS Yes, and your example with Israel is very unfortunate, completely different situations and enemies, and if Israel in terms of security can rely on the United States and NATO countries, then Russia can only rely on itself + Russia's main enemy is NATO, the most powerful military association in the world, and this also needs to be taken into account.
                1. Anzhey V.
                  6 May 2021 12: 51
                  -2
                  Real enemies, would offer to disarm ... and say that there is nothing to worry about


                  Alexander, we've already gone through this.

                  The USSR armed itself and died without a single shot being fired. Where are the Soviet cruisers and aircraft carriers? They were destroyed without a fight.

                  This is only beneficial for the enemies - we are spending resources not on the country and on economic advancement, but on weapons that we cannot use.

                  They are not fools - they know that arsenals lull our vigilance, creating a false sense of calm.

                  Yes, we need a strong army, a nuclear arsenal, a powerful air force - this is the guarantee of our inviolability for more than a decade. On naval adventures contradict the very strategic logic of our country.
                  1. timokhin-aa
                    timokhin-aa 6 May 2021 13: 16
                    +2
                    The USSR armed itself and died without a single shot being fired. Where are the Soviet cruisers and aircraft carriers?


                    Of the Soviet "aircraft carriers", only one was cut into metal - Novorossiysk.
                    Kiev and Minsk were sold, Baku was profitably rebuilt into an aircraft carrier and sold to India, where he still works as the strongest ship of the Navy, Kuznetsov is still in service, the Varyag serves in China.
                    All countries have had difficult times when they sold off the fleet, the Britons had it, and the Americans are waiting for it with a high degree of probability.

                    Of the Soviet cruisers that were relevant at the time of the collapse of the country, three were lost - Kirov, Frunze-Lazarev of project 1144 and Lobov of project 1164, and the latter is not in service only because it went to Ukraine. The rest are in the ranks or for modernization.

                    Slow down.
              3. KKND
                KKND 6 May 2021 12: 50
                +2
                Quote: Anjay V.
                You'd better think about the fact that the real enemies of the country would first of all begin to push it towards an arms race ...

                Well, yes, it is necessary to disarm and "bend" everyone with "soft power". Brilliant!
                1. Anzhey V.
                  6 May 2021 12: 54
                  -4
                  As I can see, you were taught to write at school, but with reading you are all bad ...
                  1. KKND
                    KKND 6 May 2021 13: 08
                    +2
                    Your suggestions to save money on the fleet are very naive. You don't understand anything about geopolitics or military affairs. Do you think the USSR was stupid. Why did I spend huge resources on the fleet and overstrained myself. Here are the fools in the USSR in the top military-political leadership sat. Not like the brilliant Anzhej V. from the "yellow" site topwar. Where are they before him.
                    We do not build a fleet simply because we cannot, and not because we do not need it. Therefore, we launched the myth of sea and land powers.
                    Here's a look at what happened when we could.
              4. Artyom Karagodin
                Artyom Karagodin 6 May 2021 19: 16
                +1
                I want to see my country as the first among equals - a country with a modern approach and modern thinking.


                Who else, but I do not argue with this, because I do not consider you a narrow-minded person, and even more so those who promote other people's interests. However, do you seriously believe that someone will put up with the fact that we are applying for this status? This is precisely why we need military force, including at sea. In this regard, aircraft carriers are an extremely effective thing, like aviation itself in principle.

                It is foolish to believe that military force alone can be dispensed with, here I am in solidarity with you 100%, but we also cannot consciously reduce the country's military capabilities. "Partners" will swallow us and not choke. Like Yugoslavia, Libya, Iraq and many others. And since you referred to Peter I in your publication, it would not be bad to recall his words that "The state, which has one land army, has one hand, and which the fleet also has, has both hands."
                1. Anzhey V.
                  6 May 2021 21: 39
                  -2
                  However, do you seriously believe that someone will put up with the fact that we are applying for this status? This is precisely why we need military force, including at sea. In this regard, aircraft carriers are an extremely effective thing, like aviation itself in principle.


                  Artem, you know perfectly well what my point of view is on this matter.

                  For me, strategy is primarily about using the opponent's weaknesses, not my own strength.

                  The fleet in this respect is an attempt to play where the enemy has a lot of strength, and we have weaknesses.

                  I did not refer to Peter the Great, I just gave a small example)
                  1. Artyom Karagodin
                    Artyom Karagodin 6 May 2021 21: 56
                    +1
                    For me, strategy is primarily about using the opponent's weaknesses, not my own strength.


                    How do you propose to act without a powerful navy in conditions when SSBNs are the basis of the American nuclear potential, and this potential was created and still remains as a way to destroy our country in particular? What weaknesses of the United States can we use in this situation?

                    You need your own knife against a man with a knife. Any martial arts specialist will say that if he encounters a man armed with a knife, he will not try to disarm him, but will try to escape. But you can't escape from the Tridents.
                    1. Anzhey V.
                      6 May 2021 22: 12
                      -2
                      How do you propose to act without a powerful navy in conditions when SSBNs are the basis of the American nuclear potential, and this potential was created and still remains as a way to destroy our country in particular? What weaknesses of the United States can we use in this situation?


                      That's what strategic analysis is for.

                      Although the United States is in the lead, its position is extremely precarious. The anti-Chinese coalition has not yet been formed, and the situation inside the country is very tense. Strategic opportunities in a number of regions of the world are extremely limited, they do not pull the confrontation on two fronts well - they have to distribute spheres of influence between the allies.

                      It's like a bonfire, into which you need to throw gasoline.

                      It is possible to make the American situation a kind of hell, creating more and more threats, undermining their influence. Prepare military provocations with the participation of third countries, play off with China. Ensure the growth of organized crime in the United States, provoke interracial and social conflicts.

                      Believe me, we have so many opportunities that any missile salvo of ships is childish pranks against this background.

                      This is the era of hybrid warfare, and you need to think accordingly.
                      1. Liam
                        Liam 6 May 2021 22: 46
                        +3
                        Quote: Anjay V.
                        Prepare military provocations with the participation of third countries, play off with China. Ensure the growth of organized crime in the United States, provoke interracial and social conflicts

                        Do you think that a similar response will not come to these actions and the United States has fewer opportunities to respond in a mirror-like manner?
                      2. Anzhey V.
                        6 May 2021 22: 49
                        -1
                        Do you think that a similar response will not come to these actions and the United States has fewer opportunities to respond in a mirror-like manner?


                        Yes, we already exist in a state of permanent "response". Absolutely everything happens to us that I described - it is just done a little more tenderly and affectionately, and therefore imperceptibly.

                        In any case, there are opportunities and there are clearly more of them than in the situation with sea battles.
                      3. Liam
                        Liam 6 May 2021 22: 55
                        +2
                        Do not go to the other extreme. What you propose is not new. This is the main arsenal of the Cold War and you know the results for whom and how it ended. Do not delude yourself that since we cannot use aircraft carriers, it will turn out into a hybrid. Exactly the same. the reasons why aircraft carriers do not work will prevent you from successfully playing hybrid.
                      4. Anzhey V.
                        6 May 2021 23: 00
                        +1
                        If you are interested in “what I am for”, it is primarily for the large-scale modernization of the country, and not the struggle for God knows what in distant Palestine.

                        I am not deceiving myself and I understand very well what you are talking about - and I agree with that.

                        The current problems will make any scenario useless - in fact, that's what I'm trying to explain to everyone. First you need to learn how to be a modern state, and only then break into the international arena with showdowns.
                      5. Liam
                        Liam 6 May 2021 23: 09
                        +3
                        Quote: Anjay V.
                        for large-scale modernization of the country

                        Quote: Anjay V.
                        for large-scale modernization of the country

                        It's a pity that 99% of the contingent do not understand this.
                        Returning to "our rams".

                        The game of hybrid, in fact, is more difficult than the game of aircraft carriers. You need a sickly economy, remarkable strategic thinking, many high-flying analysts, strong allies, long-term political will, possession of "soft power" and many other non-trivial things. easier)
                2. Artyom Karagodin
                  Artyom Karagodin 6 May 2021 23: 01
                  0
                  Agree, Liam. And if they arrange a little Tsushima for us, which they have not yet dared to do, but which they may well do due to the weakness of our Navy, then the matter will not smell of Swamp Square, but something more serious. Here we have a combination of "soft" power with quite a hard one.

                  By the way, I will add the words, addressing already to Andrey. If we start adding fuel to the fire of their confrontation with China, the latter will also draw conclusions about us. Why do we need to sculpt our own enemy from an essentially allied country at the moment? And so it will be if we start playing China with America. They are not, they will immediately understand it.
                3. Liam
                  Liam 6 May 2021 23: 20
                  +1
                  How things are going on the hybrid front can be observed even now by what is happening in the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Bulgaria. Even those few pro-Russian politicians (the same Zeman) are finally modestly promoted by short-sighted actions for the sake of momentary small gain. They changed the warehouse of rusty mines by 6 yards of Rosatom, for example. .The future losses are hard to count
        2. Artyom Karagodin
          Artyom Karagodin 6 May 2021 23: 05
          0
          The fleet in this respect is an attempt to play where the enemy has a lot of strength, and we have weaknesses.
          ... Duc in the 70s, our fleet was also weaker than the American one, but several times we "forced them to peace", or rather, not to enter the war. Because there was superiority in application tactics. This is exactly what we need to strive for, and it is possible to really do it, there would be a desire and less adventures like "corvette frigate" 20386 and so on.
  • Dart2027
    Dart2027 6 May 2021 06: 44
    +1
    I was especially amused by the phrase about the threat from Europe. The author is generally aware of what powerful Armed Forces are now at the same Germans?
    1. Anzhey V.
      6 May 2021 10: 47
      -4
      The author is generally aware of what powerful Armed Forces are now at the same Germans?


      And where does the Germans have to do with it? Are they the only ones in Europe?

      Look at the total potential of NATO, dear. They have 21 thousand aircraft alone against 4 thousand of ours.

      Are we sure that with such an imbalance we need the fleet, and that we can win with just one arms race?
      1. Dart2027
        Dart2027 6 May 2021 11: 12
        +3
        Quote: Anjay V.
        Look at the total potential of NATO, dear. They have 21 thousand aircraft alone against 4 thousand of ours.

        And you, dear, propose to create a military potential equal to the entire NATO? Seriously? One plane costs, let 70 lam bucks, which means that 19000 trillion 1 billion is needed for the construction of another 330, not counting everything necessary for their maintenance.
        Will there be more nonsense?
        Quote: Anjay V.
        And where does the Germans have to do with it? Are they the only ones in Europe?

        Moreover, they are taken as an example. The fact is that no one in Europe wants to fight with us, except perhaps Ukraine and Poland, and that is because the owner will force, and the armies of the European countries are a pale shadow of themselves.
        1. Anzhey V.
          6 May 2021 11: 31
          -2
          And you, dear, propose to create a military potential equal to the entire NATO?


          Have you read my comment carefully? I quite understandably say that we do not need an arms race, we need to learn how to use the available resources of the country as efficiently as possible by investing in its development.

          The fact is that no one in Europe wants to fight with us, except perhaps Ukraine and Poland, and that is because the owner will force, and the armies of the European countries are a pale shadow of themselves.


          Nobody wants to fight at all, and this fact must be used. As for the "pale shadow" - we are now also far from the Soviet Union.
          1. Dart2027
            Dart2027 6 May 2021 11: 49
            +1
            Quote: Anjay V.
            I am quite understandable - we do not need an arms race

            And that is why you are comparing the number of aircraft of the entire NATO with that of the Russian Federation?
            Quote: Anjay V.
            we need to learn how to make the most of

            So they are learning, including about the fleet.
            Quote: Anjay V.
            Nobody wants to fight at all, and this fact must be used.

            And that's why the US is stirring up wars wherever they can?
            1. Anzhey V.
              6 May 2021 11: 53
              -2
              And that is why you are comparing the number of aircraft of the entire NATO with that of the Russian Federation?


              It's the same you are saying about the "pale shadow of the power of NATO." I am only showing you that it is not.

              So they are learning, including about the fleet.


              Fortunately, they do not study in the navy, but not for reasons of expediency ...

              And that's why the US is stirring up wars wherever they can?


              The USA is the world hegemon. We are not. And if you haven't noticed, there are a lot of countries in the world that promote their interests not exclusively by military methods.

              And the United States, by the way, is also trying to do this less and less - the resources are not the same.

              https://topwar.ru/182418-zhelannyj-sudan-novaja-tochka-protivostojanija-rossii-i-ssha.html – вот, про Судан почитайте, наглядная разница.
              1. Dart2027
                Dart2027 6 May 2021 12: 00
                -1
                Quote: Anjay V.
                I am only showing you that it is not.

                And how many planes were there in 1980?
                The air force of the FRG at the time of the collapse of the USSR was 10000 people, and now the entire army of the whole of Germany does not reach 200000.
                Quote: Anjay V.
                Fortunately, they don't study in the navy.
                Why, 2 UDCs of 40000 tons have already been laid.
                Quote: Anjay V.
                The USA is the world hegemon. We are not.
                And so we must raise our hands.
                Quote: Anjay V.
                And if you haven't noticed, there are a lot of countries in the world that promote their interests not exclusively by military methods.
                Are you talking about the constant bombing of the Israeli Air Force?
          2. KKND
            KKND 6 May 2021 12: 55
            0
            Quote: Anjay V.
            Nobody wants to fight at all, and this fact must be used. As for the "pale shadow" - we are now also far from the Soviet Union.

            Before the First World War, no one wanted to fight either. Some clever guy even published a book about the economic interdependence of the European powers and how the war is not profitable. But wars are a natural process of natural selection among a population of people. They happen whether we like it or not. Selection was needed and the First World War happened and almost immediately the Spanish flu virus.
  • TerraSandera
    TerraSandera 6 May 2021 07: 17
    +5
    To create a powerful fleet, so that later some kind of soft-bodied fool in power, and it is not excluded, cut him on pins and needles, instead of preserving the carefully acquired, sorry "exported" wealth in the West? Examples with submarines and navies were ... and are still continuing.
    Why a huge fleet (and it cannot be different, because there are a lot of theaters of war), a country with unexpressed ideas. In my opinion, now we need to preserve our existence as a state. (Demographic problems, brain drain, corruption penetrated all branches, including the government). How will the fleet help in this? To overstrain, trying? Well, in my opinion, we already have a lack of competencies. (Engines, floating docks, shipyards, huge deadlines, etc.)
    1. Kalmar
      Kalmar 6 May 2021 08: 15
      +2
      Quote: TerraSandera
      (Demographic problems, brain drain, corruption penetrated all branches, including the government). How will the fleet help in this?

      So no one says that you need to put the bolt on 32 on everything else and throw all the resources into the fleet. The development of the armed forces (in particular, the fleet) is only one of the components of work to strengthen the state. And the solution of the listed problems: demography, brains, corruption, is an indispensable condition for that. After all, it is clear that while competent engineers are fleeing abroad, and ships are built primarily in the selfish interests of "respected people", one can only dream of all sorts of nuclear destroyers and aircraft carriers.
      1. TerraSandera
        TerraSandera 6 May 2021 09: 12
        +3
        This is exactly what we are talking about. A strong fleet is within the strength of a developed state, but we are unfortunately losing ground. In this situation, you need to approach the issue from the other side. There are examples, it won't take long to build a fleet. Everything depends on the economy and industry. While this is not the case, they will build what they still can + the corruption component.
  • Avior
    Avior 6 May 2021 07: 24
    +6
    ... The main thesis of these ideas is built, however, around a completely different idea - the postulate that the fleet is supposedly the solution to most of the problems of Russian foreign policy.

    To be honest, I haven't seen such a postulate on VO either in articles or in comments.
    Much of the article is interesting, but, in my opinion, the author applies his arguments to a postulate that is not at all typical for VO.
    The example with Israel is also strained. If Israel were threatened with a naval blockade at a distance exceeding the range of coastal aircraft, Israel would have a completely different fleet.
    And so everything is correct - the security of Israel has long been ensured not only by the army and navy, but also by the depth of economic ties with the strongest states in the world. This was not always the case, by the way.
    It is, of course, better to be rich and healthy, with weapons, political connections and economic prosperity, than poor and sick.
    But it doesn't always work out.
    hi
  • SVD68
    SVD68 6 May 2021 07: 25
    +7
    The author cites Turkey's actions in Syria as an example of a "new war". But Turkey's actions in Syria are due to the fact that they rely on a powerful army that no one can resist in that region: neither Syria, nor Iran, nor Russia. Russia is weaker there than Turkey!
  • Boris55
    Boris55 6 May 2021 07: 35
    -9
    The navy plays less and less a decisive role in global politics.

    Until the 19th century, when the development of inland territories was going on with great difficulty, and the population of all countries was mainly concentrated along the coastline (look at the modern map of the World), when the coexistence of states was associated exclusively with the exchange of goods by sea, then it cost a large fleet then countries block this path, as a blocked country practically ceased to coexist as a state.

    With the advent of railways and the development of inland territories, the role of the fleet was reduced to a minimum. It makes no sense to keep a fleet for attack, it is enough to have a fleet for defense.

    Do we need a fleet to advance our interests in the world? Perhaps in the future, when we will have these interests i.e. when Russia will be completely independent, and this will happen then:

    - when the USSR flag returns instead of the tricolor;
    - when Volgograd will be renamed Stalingrad;
    - when the mausoleum on May 9 is not covered with shields, and the higher authorities will receive the parade from it.
    1. timokhin-aa
      timokhin-aa 6 May 2021 13: 18
      +3
      - when the USSR flag returns instead of the tricolor;
      - when Volgograd will be renamed Stalingrad;
      - when the mausoleum on May 9 is not covered with shields, and the higher authorities will receive the parade from it.


      Like never? Are we all crawling to the cemetery?
    2. KKND
      KKND 6 May 2021 13: 36
      -1
      Quote: Boris55
      - when the USSR flag returns instead of the tricolor;
      - when Volgograd will be renamed Stalingrad;
      - when the mausoleum on May 9 is not covered with shields, and the higher authorities will receive the parade from it.

      You forgot to add a critical item
      -when Comrade Stalin rises from the grave.
  • The comment was deleted.
  • Niko
    Niko 6 May 2021 08: 06
    +9
    "We live in an unprecedented epoch" ... the author wrote, and then "Ostap suffered" .... all the same, ignoring real questions (for example, the deployment and combat stability of the underwater component of the nuclear shield), the author answers his own convenient questions, and solves its problems. And besides, he lives in a NEW ERA, unseen before the village ... What did he not see? The fact that economically and Militarily strong countries are expanding their influence? What are the mercenaries using? So it began before our era.
  • Angry Alt-Right
    Angry Alt-Right 6 May 2021 08: 18
    +6
    Here this somersault of the author "on the topic" I frankly did not understand:
    Let's say we have an example of the People's Republic of China. It, in turn, has a very impressive modern navy, surpassing the size and power of that of another Chinese republic, better known to us as Taiwan.

    If we take the situation out of context, considering it exclusively from the point of view of naval confrontation (this is the technique, unfortunately, used by the authors of the Military Review, who are actively lobbying the interests of the Navy), then it becomes obvious: a strong PRC can crush rebellious Taiwan in an instant.

    In the end, what prevents a country that has the second navy in the world and an impressive nuclear arsenal against a state that is inferior to it in absolutely everything from the implementation of such a scenario?

    Fortunately for Taiwan (and unfortunately for shipbuilding lobbyists), world politics does not work in a vacuum. There are a number of strategic factors that prevent Beijing from realizing a military scenario - accordingly, the fleet and the armed forces as a whole are not independent actors that can pursue state policy.

    What prevents to implement? Seriously? This is an example "in spite of" spiteful "aircraft carriers" lobbyists;
    What about the fact that Taiwan will be defending the Quad countries? Well, that is, the very countries that have these same aircraft carriers, but more (in aggregate) than China?
    How about not being "taken out of context" like that?
  • Niko
    Niko 6 May 2021 08: 22
    +8
    In this article, the author finally stopped hiding behind aircraft carriers and honestly made it clear what is against the fleet as such, and that he really does not understand why the fleet exists
  • Vladimir1155
    Vladimir1155 6 May 2021 08: 22
    -7
    it is obvious that the fleet is needed, but it will be a submarine fleet, as well as coastal naval aviation, coastal surface and underwater systems and a small number of frigates and ASW corvettes for the peacetime maritime policy and the protection of ASW around nuclear submarine bases (1000-3000 km)
  • BAI
    BAI 6 May 2021 08: 35
    -1
    1.
    Simple. Understandable. Are wrong.

    Not wrong. Criminal. The so-called "patriots" are trying to drag Russia into a ruinous and destructive arms race by imposing on it useless but terribly costly aircraft carriers.
    2.
    a strong PRC can crush rebellious Taiwan in an instant.

    In the end, what prevents a country that has the second navy in the world and an impressive nuclear arsenal against a state that is inferior to it in absolutely everything from the implementation of such a scenario?

    What is the PRC! US about the DPRK broke off! No fleet helped.
    1. Lannan Shi
      Lannan Shi 6 May 2021 09: 13
      +3
      Quote: BAI
      What is the PRC! US about the DPRK broke off! No fleet helped.

      Actually, about the DPRK, the United States did not even break off at all. We went from Busan to the Chinese border. And it was precisely the fleet that played a leading role in this journey. Without the "useless" ships, the Americans simply could not deliver troops, land them, cover them from the air, or supply them. But the United States is still about China. Well, they were not ready, morally, to start a third world war, to destroy China. Didn't see the benefit to justify such a mess.
      1. Vladimir1155
        Vladimir1155 6 May 2021 18: 23
        -2
        Quote: Lannan Shi
        neither deliver troops, nor land them, nor cover from the air, nor supply the Americans simply could not

        that is, you do not argue that the "big fleet" is intended for aggression against small distant countries ... and for defense you need nuclear submarines
        1. Lannan Shi
          Lannan Shi 6 May 2021 19: 09
          +5
          Quote: vladimir1155
          that is, you do not argue that the "big fleet" is intended for aggression against small distant countries ... and for defense you need nuclear submarines

          The main weapon of the Kriegsmarine was the submarine. Was Nazi Germany in WWII a "Small Defending Country"? In the defense of Leningrad, the USSR made good use of the "large fleet intended for aggression." The defense of Leningrad was an act of aggression against the peace-loving German troops who happened to be on the outskirts of the city?
          The division of weapons into offensive and defensive is rezunism in a pure and uncomplicated form. And at the same time, evidence of an inability to think. Independent. Yeah.
          1. Vladimir1155
            Vladimir1155 6 May 2021 21: 27
            -1
            Quote: Lannan Shi
            In the defense of Leningrad, the USSR made good use of the "large fleet intended for aggression."

            if you think that the parking of your favorite "large fleet" in Kronstadt was a "good use" of battleships and cruisers, then you confirmed that coastal missile systems are needed, and moving battleships, destroyers disguised as battleships, and cruisers are not needed
          2. Vladimir1155
            Vladimir1155 6 May 2021 21: 32
            -1
            Quote: Lannan Shi
            The division of weapons into offensive and defensive - yes

            Defensive meaning
            DEFENSIVE, th, th. With the aim of defense, protection. Defensive battles. Defensive tactics. (Small Academic Dictionary, IAS)
            OFFENSIVE, th, th. Having the character of an offensive1 (in 1 value), which is an offensive. Offensive actions. Offensive battles. (Small Academic Dictionary, IAS)

            All meanings of offensive

            The meaning of the word "weapon"
            WEAPON, -I, cf. 1. A weapon for attack or defense. (Small Academic Dictionary, IAS)
            1. Lannan Shi
              Lannan Shi 6 May 2021 22: 29
              +3
              Quote: vladimir1155
              if you think that the anchorage of your favorite "big fleet" in Kronstadt was a "good use" of battleships and cruisers

              One of the main indicators that allows one to reason whether a technique was used badly or well is the damage inflicted on the enemy. And according to this indicator, the ancient sevas will not yield or even surpass some of the newest kings of the British. yes And conversations as it should, and how not to apply - in favor of losers.
              Quote: vladimir1155
              coastal missile systems are needed, and moving battleships, destroyers disguised as battleships, and cruisers are not needed

              Exactly, exactly. And tanks are not needed, because there are anti-tank guns and ATGMs. Similar. as a sword is not needed, for you have acquired a shield. yes
              Quote: vladimir1155
              Defensive meaning

              Laponka. This is not a general guide to action. These are crutches for eternal lieutenants who are sorrowful in their minds. Here is the anti-tank artillery. The name itself is anti-tank defense... Does this mean that the anti-tank gun is defensive? Yes, schaz. Should I enlighten you about the assault groups, which cleaned out different Berlin, and formed around the forty-five?

              Here are the "defensive" weapons, pushing into the attack through the streets of Breslau. Pruschies, despite the fact that there was a particular deficit in "offensive" tanks, in 1945 the spacecraft did not experience. By that time, they were just steering the spacecraft by adequate ones, who did not divide weapons into offensive and defensive. And they used everything they had.
              Again. The division of weapons into defensive and offensive is the lot of someone who is dangerous to entrust, not just a separation, but a kitten. For ditch, by the power of intellect.
              1. Vladimir1155
                Vladimir1155 6 May 2021 22: 45
                0
                Quote: Lannan Shi
                One of the main indicators for reasoning whether a technique was used badly or well is the damage done to the enemy.

                I support the Strategic Missile Forces, SSBNs, and everything else is secondary
                Quote: Lannan Shi
                Laponka. This is not a general guide to action. These are crutches for eternal lieutenants who are sorrowful in their minds. Here is the anti-tank artillery. The very name is anti-tank defense. Does this mean that the anti-tank gun is defensive? Yes, schaz. Should I enlighten you about the assault groups that cleaned out different Berliners and formed around the forty-five?

                here you yourself fell into the hole that you were digging ... you are a young lieutenant, and I am an old sea wolf for a very long time in civilian life, I envy your lightness of thoughts, you have everything in allegories, everything in comparisons and forty-fives and tanks and ancient sevs dragged for red word .... come back to reality and finally become an experienced officer, and not a teenage free student of military courses, you must understand that the magpies and the tanks and weapons of the ancient sevs have nothing to do with aircraft carriers or nuclear submarines and PLO frigates to which I oppose them ... .a real senior officer does not fly in allegories like a pink pony, or a poet, but deals with a specific weapon in a specific situation and in specific conditions. having understood the task first ... for example, the same aircraft carrier is not a spherical horse in a vacuum, but a real power in the hands of the world gendarme of the USA or the largest influential countries with investments and interests in Africa and Asia, and it is just a rusty trough in the conditions and for the tasks of the Russian Federation ... . learn to think like an adult already
                1. Lannan Shi
                  Lannan Shi 6 May 2021 23: 02
                  0
                  Quote: vladimir1155
                  I support the Strategic Missile Forces, SSBNs, and everything else is secondary

                  Oh yes ... The Strategic Missile Forces would be especially amazing for an operation in Chechnya. However, in the LDNR "vacationers" with poplars would look good. And to help the Assad, by sending, under its own power, hundreds or two megatons, and it would be funny at all.
                  And how grateful you would be to the residents of Stavropol, and other residents of Voronezh, walking under the radioactive rain ... And you yourself would like to crunch a luminous bun made of slightly glowing Krasnodar flour. yes
                  Quote: vladimir1155
                  I'm an old sea wolf

                  Smiled. Really.
                  Quote: vladimir1155
                  and finally become an experienced officer

                  Little sweetheart, somehow I am not eager. I was not even drafted into the army because of my gender. But here's to tell how you can drive the same North Korea into the Stone Age, for example, using purely "defensive" nuclear submarines, minesweepers, patrol ships and ... I don't know. what exactly from the land, you fancy to write down in the defensive, I do not see any problems at all. Even military education is not needed here, adequate brains will be enough. yes
                  1. Vladimir1155
                    Vladimir1155 6 May 2021 23: 10
                    0
                    Quote: Lannan Shi
                    Quote: vladimir1155
                    I support the Strategic Missile Forces, SSBNs, and everything else is secondary

                    Oh yes ... The Strategic Missile Forces would be especially amazing for an operation in Chechnya. However, in the LDNR "vacationers" with poplars would look good.

                    well, first of all, you wrote first
                    Quote: Lannan Shi
                    One of the main indicators that allows one to reason whether a technique was used badly or well is the damage inflicted on the enemy.

                    these are your words, I just developed them ... then you have an untranslatable pun using local idiomatic expressions
                    Quote: Lannan Shi
                    Laponka

                    Quote: Lannan Shi
                    gender

                    Quote: Lannan Shi
                    gets fancy to write down defensively, I don't see any problems at all. Even military education is not needed here, adequate brains will be enough

                    and not a word on the merits of the issue of the fleet and the importance of nuclear submarines + coastal aviation + ASW frigates + minesweepers ... against an inadequate aircraft carrier + battleship destroyer
                    1. Lannan Shi
                      Lannan Shi 6 May 2021 23: 43
                      0
                      Quote: vladimir1155
                      these are your words, I just developed them

                      Not developed, but perverted. These are slightly different things. I compared weapons of the same class, only different years of release, and you ... TT and ICBM.
                      Quote: vladimir1155
                      and not a word on the merits of the issue of the fleet and the importance of nuclear submarines

                      The dialogue began with the fact that you said that nuclear submarines are needed for defense. Nonsense. Frank. Submarines are needed for everything. And for defense, and for attack, and for intercepting cargo, they will come in handy, and just to demonstrate, threats will come down. In the same way, the RKR will cover its coast very well, and AB, for the defense of the Kuriles, for example, will suit no worse than for an attack on some kind of Angola.
                      Now about the defensive nuclear submarines. We are deploying defensive SSGNs, processing headquarters, airfields, air defense, naval bases, and ground forces for ground forces from them. As the ammo depletes, we change the SSGN for fresh ones. Defensive submarines, are engaged in cleaning the coast of Korea from the remnants of the Navy. The defensive patrols will quite cope with the cover from the stubs of the Korean aviation. After a couple of thousand defensive aircrafts have worked out at the airfields, there will not be much of that aviation left. yes When the defensive MAPLs multiply the remnants of the Korean Navy by zero, the defensive minesweepers begin to deploy troops. Yes, a little uncomfortable, DKs fit better. But we, in principle, attack with a strictly "defensive weapon". It is inconvenient, of course, from trawls instead of the BDK, but quite feasible.
                      So it comes to the fact that dividing weapons into defensive and offensive is the essence of insanity? And only on the sanity of the owner of the weapon, does it depend on whether he will be able to use it correctly, or will he pull his legs up, screaming about grenades of the wrong system?
                      1. Vladimir1155
                        Vladimir1155 7 May 2021 19: 42
                        +1
                        in general, defensive weapons can be adapted for attack, and even more so for counter-strikes, as you are trying to land troops with minesweepers, but this is inconvenient, the submarine can inflict unacceptable damage to the aggressor, and possibly force it into peace, but it is not adapted to seize foreign territories, and so is a minesweeper , on it you will not conquer foreign countries, rather it is convenient for finding mines, .....
                        Quote: Lannan Shi
                        In the same way, the RKR will cover its coast very well, and AB, for the defense of the Kuriles, for example, is no worse than for an attack on some Angola.

                        this is a lie, the RKR is not suitable for defense, it is ineffective in the sense of defense because it is vulnerable and more expensive than coastal complexes, for example, battleships that stood in Kronstadt in WWI and WWII in cost would not only surpass railway artillery of a similar caliber 40 times, but also led to not the abundance of field artillery from the regiment and division, and led to a mass of unnecessary casualties of soldiers ... well, we have already discussed AB on the Kuril Islands = there is no point at all, there is no place for it there and will not survive, coastal aviation is ten times cheaper
                      2. Lannan Shi
                        Lannan Shi 7 May 2021 23: 13
                        +2
                        Quote: vladimir1155
                        but for the seizure of foreign territories it is not adapted, also a minesweeper,

                        Let me tell you a terrible secret. Avics for capturing foreign territories are also very poorly suited. For they will not enter either Paris or Berlin. yes The only thing that is absolutely suitable for these purposes is the infantry. And the most attacking army in the world is probably San Marino. For its troops consist purely of aggressive offensive infantry, not burdened by either the Navy or the Air Force, absolutely unsuitable for the seizure of foreign territories. laughing
                        Quote: vladimir1155
                        RKR is not suitable for defense, it is ineffective in the sense of defense because it is vulnerable and more expensive than coastal complexes,

                        Well, let's count, dear moles. yes
                        We have our DV. At a minimum, it is necessary to cover Vladik, Petropavlovsk, Sakhalin, Kuriles. Weapon options for defense. 1, Modernized Nakhimov. 2. Coastal anti-ship missile and air defense systems.
                        Nakhimov is carrying 80 onyxes and 92 missiles. Or 10 Bastion divisions and 11,65 S-300 divisions. Nakhimov can be thrown to any of the 4 points. Those. it replaces 40 anti-ship missile divisions and 47 S-300 divisions. These same 87 divisions, only chassis for themselves, will ask for 1350-1400 pieces. 700 launchers, 200 radars, 150 staff and other vehicles. All this congestion will require hectares of warehouses, repair shops and other pleasure. Plus to everything else 3750 people only in the S-300 divisions. Plus about the same in the Bastions. Plus the protection of all this splendor, plus other teams, special officers and signalmen. And it's very good if the total score is less than 15 thousand, and does not run far behind them. Plus office space for all of them, plus barracks, canteens, and so on, so forth. As it is not sure that Nakhimov will be more expensive than all this splendor. About the "invulnerability" of the above zoo, and do not say anything at all. As well as the fact that if you need anti-ship missiles somewhere in the region ... Well, let the new Guinea, Nakhimov will drag them there without any problems. And for the bastions you will have to build a motorway across half a ball. straight on the waves of the Quiet okiyanu. lol
                        PS
                        If there is something more expensive than an absolutely blind defense, then science is not yet aware of this.
                      3. Vladimir1155
                        Vladimir1155 8 May 2021 09: 21
                        0
                        Quote: Lannan Shi
                        As it is not sure that Nakhimov will be more expensive than all this splendor. About the "invulnerability" of the above zoo, and do not say anything at all. As well as the fact that if you need anti-ship missiles somewhere in the area ... Well, let the new guinea,

                        Nakhimov will be more expensive than all this splendor, every 10 times, he also needs different types of supplies, and most importantly, he is vulnerable, unlike the soil complexes scattered through the forests, and we are not going to Guinea, there is a nuclear submarine for the oceans,
                        Quote: Lannan Shi
                        If there is anything more expensive than an absolutely blind defense,

                        here they hit the sky with a finger, defense is always several times cheaper than an attack (for example, in Guinea)
                      4. Lannan Shi
                        Lannan Shi 8 May 2021 13: 38
                        +2
                        Quote: vladimir1155
                        Nakhimov will be more expensive than all this splendor, every 10,

                        According to RBK's estimates, the S-1 Division 300 costs approximately $ 75 million. 87 - in the region of 6.5 billion. What is already more expensive RRC will be released.
                        And about the construction from scratch of a series of cities required to accommodate and maintain 160 divisions ... From $ 70 per meter of a pre-fabricated hangar, unheated, and up to $ 400 per square meter of capital. From 200-250 re per square meter of footpath and parade ground, and up to 11-12.000 per square meter of 1st category road. And these are extremely low prices, the actual cost. And there are other nonsense like power lines and water pipes. It’s cheap to say that it’s cheap to create conditions for the accommodation and operation of 3-4 thousand units of equipment, and for the residence and work of thousands of 15 people ... I envy your exuberant optimism.
                        Quote: vladimir1155
                        defense is always several times cheaper than attack

                        Rave. Heavy. Having 2-3 times superiority, in general, over the enemy, but having smeared the forces with a thin layer of tens of thousands of kilometers, you will be a dozen, or even dozens of times inferior at each specific point. And they will knock you out with a minimum of difficulties and losses. Throwing 2-3 dozen ships on each separate anti-ship missile or air defense division. And stupidly hammering in mass. And to create a defense along the entire coast of the Russian Federation, in terms of density comparable to that which even a single RRC will give out ... Russia will not be able to pull. China, together with the United States, is also unlikely. If only the whole earthly ball is plowed.
                        Tired of describing the obvious. And if you have nothing to do, you can sit down and calculate what it will cost, say, in Tartus, build an infrastructure to accommodate 22 bastion divisions and s-300, and the cost of the equipment itself. And then we will speculate which is cheaper. One Nakhimov, which can be thrown into Tartus, and to Sevastopol, and to Sudan, or to bury the entire coast with such fortified areas.
                      5. Vladimir1155
                        Vladimir1155 8 May 2021 14: 37
                        +1
                        Quote: Lannan Shi
                        One Nakhimov, which can be thrown into tartus, and to Sevastopol, and to Sudan,

                        it is impossible, a mine will blow up on the way ...
                        Quote: Lannan Shi
                        And about the construction from scratch of a series of cities required to accommodate and maintain 160 divisions ... From $ 70 per meter of a pre-fabricated hangar, unheated, and up to $ 400 per square meter of capital. From 200-250 re per square meter of footpath and parade ground, and up to 11-12.000 per square meter of 1st category road. And these are extremely low prices, in fact, the cost price. And there are other nonsense like power lines and water pipes.

                        you are talking about places of permanent deployment, during tactical movements of troops, peaceful infrastructure is used and permanent bases are not being erected ... about "smearing", there is nothing to smear along the entire coast, four points are being defended Murmansk Arkhangelsk Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky Vladivostok, and you need to move troops between them for there is no particular time of war and there is no sense, wars are now fleeting and will quickly turn into nuclear strikes, and on the seas Nakhimov has nothing to do at all, he will be destroyed there by coastal complexes in half an hour, and even more so we are not going to Guinea ... I do not urge to write off Nakhimov, but new build is nonsense
  • EvilLion
    EvilLion 6 May 2021 09: 02
    -4
    A large ship - a large anti-ship missile from an aircraft.
    1. Anzhey V.
      6 May 2021 10: 50
      -5
      A large ship - a large anti-ship missile from an aircraft.


      Wait a minute - now you will be told that the aircraft needs target designation, which can only be issued by an aircraft carrier ...laughing
      1. EvilLion
        EvilLion 6 May 2021 11: 01
        0
        And the plane is only deck-mounted.
        1. Anzhey V.
          6 May 2021 11: 04
          -7
          And the plane is only deck-mounted


          Naturally! For a strange reason, everyone else can only fly over land ...
          1. Artyom Karagodin
            Artyom Karagodin 6 May 2021 19: 24
            +3
            I understand that many admit swearing at you, but why are you paying with the same coin? There is no laughing, but you need to understand the issue.

            An Air Force pilot, not a naval one, will never fly over the sea - special training is needed there. For this reason, in the rest of the world, naval pilots, even basic aviation, have naval ranks. Not a major, but a captain of the first rank, for example. And they cook them differently. The land is full of landmarks that are simply not available on the high seas. This is far from the only difference in aviation operations over the sea. Here the site is full of specialists who will put everything on the shelves for you.

            And the advantage of AB is that its presence makes it possible to advance the line of action of aviation from the coastline for many hundreds of miles, which coastal aviation cannot EVER. Even the MPA. Therefore, we need it. In a combat-ready form.
            1. Anzhey V.
              6 May 2021 21: 27
              -1
              Artem, I have said more than once that with all my hands and feet for naval aviation)

              There is no talk of sending unprepared pilots into battle over the water surface.

              And please stop retelling to me the content of the publications of Alexander Timokhin, at one time I read almost everything that he wrote)
              1. Artyom Karagodin
                Artyom Karagodin 6 May 2021 21: 39
                0
                You will probably be surprised, but Timokhin was not the only one who wrote about this.
                1. Anzhey V.
                  6 May 2021 21: 59
                  +1
                  I won't. But do not be offended - what you say is extremely similar to the words from his materials. If not, I apologize.

                  If on the subject - even if we rush to build AB, there will be few of them. You will still have to invest in infrastructure, expand ground-based aviation units, and so on.

                  Aircraft carriers cannot exist in a vacuum, like the fleet as a whole.
                  1. Artyom Karagodin
                    Artyom Karagodin 6 May 2021 22: 20
                    +1
                    Quote: Anjay V.
                    Aircraft carriers cannot exist in a vacuum, like the fleet as a whole.

                    Of course, no one talks about this. And Timokhin including, with whom I really agree in many respects. Including because I found confirmation in other sources. I mean not only Klimov and Andrey from Chelyabinsk)))).

                    You just need to put things in order in terms of the development of funds, and not abandon the fleet as such. If we did not have such theft and outright stupidity in the Armed Forces as a whole, then the Su-57 would have long been in the army not in a single copy, and "Kuzya" would have been brought to mind, there would have been no videos where the air defense officer tells about how they are forbidden from above to work on new "TOPs" so as not to spoil their presentation. And much more. And the "naval sect", as you have deigned to say, is insisting on this.

                    I have a military brother, I am a little aware of the mess that is going on in the Ministry of Defense. Although, in fairness, they are trying to restore order in the ground forces (this is where he serves). However, how this is done is a separate and sad question.
                    1. Anzhey V.
                      6 May 2021 22: 46
                      -1
                      And the "naval sect", as you have deigned to put it, insists on this


                      Excuse me to disagree with you - it's one thing to call for the restoration of order, but quite another to try to make the fleet "plantain from all problems."

                      There is no need to abandon the fleet, you just need to understand that it does not take root with us as such for quite objective reasons. Accordingly, the approach needs to be revised.

                      However, if you are interested, take a look at my first two publications - there is just about it.
                      1. The comment was deleted.
                      2. Artyom Karagodin
                        Artyom Karagodin 6 May 2021 23: 23
                        +1
                        Excuse me to disagree with you - it's one thing to call for the restoration of order, but quite another to try to make the fleet "plantain from all problems."


                        I will, of course. But something I have not heard from the same Timokhin about the fact that the fleet is the solution to all problems. Here you are clearly wrong.
                      3. Liam
                        Liam 6 May 2021 23: 37
                        +1
                        Quote: Artyom Karagodin
                        But something I have not heard from the same Timokhin about the fact that the fleet is the solution to all problems.

                        However, it is worth recognizing that all the local naval commanders - Timokhin, Klimov and, God forgive me, AiCh-wrote cubic meters of articles here over the years, but they could not clearly explain the goals of the fleet and especially its aircraft carrier unit. no way out.
                        And this cannot be attributed only to the low level of knowledge of our website naval strategists. There are also objective reasons why Russia has not been doing very well with the fleet historically, almost always.
                      4. Artyom Karagodin
                        Artyom Karagodin 6 May 2021 23: 41
                        +2
                        Yours is not true, Liam. It's just that you should read about aircraft carriers not only what is relevant to the current discussion, but also what has been written before. Yes, and google about R&D "Order", in particular. There, the use of AB for the protection of their shores is clearly justified. It is worth considering the fact that this scientific work is not the only one, and everyone, starting from the Kuznetsov era, has confirmed that aircraft carriers are needed. Precisely in order to prevent the enemy from reaching their shores.
                      5. Liam
                        Liam 6 May 2021 23: 47
                        +1
                        Quote: Artyom Karagodin
                        written before

                        I’m not the first month and not the first year here and I know quite well what our naval commanders write.
                        Let me ask myself a question: the recognized leaders in the field of aircraft carriers are the Americans. I think no one will argue with that. Do they build their aircraft carriers and use them to protect their shores?
                      6. Artyom Karagodin
                        Artyom Karagodin 7 May 2021 00: 51
                        0
                        Including. They do not have serious sea rivals near the borders, so they can afford to do without BMZ ships and rely on an all-oceanic fleet in order to make a possible collision line with the enemy far into the ocean. Better yet, do it near the enemy's shores, as you know.

                        Plus, our concept of using AB is different. The United States is building MULTI-PURPOSE aircraft carriers, we have built air defense aircraft carriers, whose task is to ensure the stability of surface and submarine forces, as well as MRA.
                      7. Liam
                        Liam 7 May 2021 07: 16
                        +1
                        That is, geography (and economics) play a role in determining the question of whether aircraft carriers are needed and if so, which ones and for what purposes.
                        Countries with geography similar to Russia and comparable economic opportunities, almost all build non-catapult aircraft carriers VI in 30-40 kilitons. And strategist Timokhin explains through a line that this is stupidity and money down the drain
                      8. Artyom Karagodin
                        Artyom Karagodin 7 May 2021 09: 48
                        0
                        Someone else has such a coastline and four isolated theaters? And as for the size AB, you are right - it EXPLAINS why “babies” are ineffective, not only for us, but also for others.
                      9. Anzhey V.
                        7 May 2021 10: 24
                        -1
                        Someone else has such a coastline and four isolated theaters? And as for the size AB, you are right - it EXPLAINS why “babies” are ineffective, not only for us, but also for others.


                        Artem, you need to be aware that most of our "coastline" runs through uninhabited regions, and it is possible to block it from outside invasions by aviation and stationary defense)

                        Our only truly important theater of operations where a fleet is needed is the North.

                        Expeditionary units can be kept in the Black Sea, but coastal defense and aviation are sufficient for combat missions everywhere. Although the east is more complicated, it is a subject for a separate conversation in every sense.
                      10. Artyom Karagodin
                        Artyom Karagodin 7 May 2021 10: 52
                        0
                        That is, we are apparently deleting the Pacific Fleet, the Kuriles, Kamchatka?
                      11. Anzhey V.
                        7 May 2021 11: 21
                        -1
                        It requires extensive development of military infrastructure.

                        In general, the Kurils can be turned into an "unsinkable aircraft carrier" and irritate the Japanese with the constant possibility of a strike with cruise and quasi-ballistic missiles.
                      12. Artyom Karagodin
                        Artyom Karagodin 7 May 2021 11: 33
                        0
                        Quote: Anjay V.
                        It requires extensive development of military infrastructure.

                        It is required everywhere. But as for the organization of an unsinkable aircraft carrier from the Kuriles, it will cost such a penny that it's easier to just build an aircraft carrier. Moreover, a powerful grouping of troops in the Kuril Islands will need to be supplied somehow. What will these costs cost? In general, they were not convinced again.
                      13. Anzhey V.
                        7 May 2021 11: 50
                        -2
                        I didn't seem to try to convince)

                        so it will cost such a penny that it's easier to just build an aircraft carrier


                        Well, yes, well, yes, it's simpler: I briefly sketched a list of expenses only for preliminary work.

                        For comparison: a new American base in Australia for 2,5 thousand people will cost $ 211,5 million. Full cycle of work. The cost of the last Nimitz is 6,5 billion, excluding the wing.

                        Indeed, there is no difference at all - not to mention the fact that a fully equipped airfield cannot be easily disabled, and the enemy's actions will be predetermined in advance - he will be forced to throw forces to suppress it.

                        Moreover, a powerful grouping of troops in the Kuril Islands will need to be supplied somehow. What will these costs cost? In general, they were not convinced again


                        A US military base abroad costs $ 65 million a year. You can easily find the cost of the annual operation of an aircraft carrier and be horrified without me)
                      14. Artyom Karagodin
                        Artyom Karagodin 7 May 2021 11: 56
                        0
                        Why are you comparing Australia and the Kuril Islands? Firstly, the climate is different, and secondly, Australia is a mainland, not a chain of islands, there are railways and roads along which everything can be easily delivered. And these roads are many times shorter than those along which the Kuril Islands will have to be supplied. Don't you find this example inadequate? And why is it necessary to compare with "Nimitz"? Who calls to build their counterparts for our Navy?
                      15. Anzhey V.
                        7 May 2021 12: 05
                        -1
                        Artem, you saw the thesis about "the base is more expensive")

                        If you think I'm wrong, please show me the numbers. Although I am not entirely accurate, I pointed it out.

                        And why is it necessary to compare it with "Nimitz"? Who calls to build their counterparts for our Navy?


                        And you compare in terms of combat effectiveness. Even a catapult aircraft carrier can lose to the airfield in terms of the number of sorties per day. The springboard is even worse. In addition, the Nimitz carries aircraft like a decent air base.

                        Or do you think that 30 aircraft of the MiG-29K level is an equivalent replacement for 30 aircraft of the Su-35S level and 30 more of the Su-34 level?

                        In addition, active military construction will slightly warm up the economy of the Far East, which is great in itself.
                      16. Artyom Karagodin
                        Artyom Karagodin 7 May 2021 12: 25
                        0
                        Don't juggle. I'm telling you about the inadequacy of comparing Australia and the Kuriles. Just look where you have to bring fuel, building materials for the Kuril Islands, and from where - for Australia. Compare the distance from an Australian refinery to a US base. And so on each item - food, building materials. Plus, compare the climate of Australia and the Kuriles. Do you seriously think that the output will be comparable figures in the cost of the base? Moreover, you are proposing to build more than one base on the Kuril Islands, as I understand it. The cost of our aircraft carrier, similar to the Kuza in displacement, but catapult and atomic, is now estimated at about (you also gave approximate figures) 500 billion rubles, rounded up rather. This is with R&D and other things, the cost of just building will come out cheaper. Especially if you build them not 1, but 4, for example.

                        Since we are talking about numbers, and you propose setting up an air force base in the Kuril Islands, you quote the cost of building a base in the Kuriles, at least one, and not in Australia. By the way, the base in Australia you are talking about is a Marine base, not an Air Force. Do they cost the same?
  • Sandor Clegane
    Sandor Clegane 7 May 2021 17: 32
    -1
    Quote: Liam
    Do they build their aircraft carriers and use them to defend their shores?


    Of course, it is our own relatives who are their only opponents, but the crews are being driven in combat all over the world!
  • Sandor Clegane
    Sandor Clegane 7 May 2021 17: 30
    -1
    Quote: Liam
    God forgive me, AiCh have written cubic meters of articles here over the years, but have not been able to clearly explain the goals of the fleet and especially its aircraft carrier unit.

    either you haven't read Andrey from Chelyabinsk, or you just don't want to do it thoughtfully, everything was chewed up and very accessible, Timokhin and Klimov differ in the concept of fleet development.
  • Vladimir1155
    Vladimir1155 8 May 2021 14: 50
    +1
    Quote: Anjay V.
    Aircraft carriers cannot exist in a vacuum, like the fleet as a whole.

    it is in the Russian Federation that aircraft carriers exist only as a spherical horse in the vacuum of dreams of members of the sect of aircraft carrier witnesses, ... the old one that was rusted, and the new ones will not be clear, but dreams and the sacred idol of aircraft carriers continue to exist in their dreams, as it were
  • Vladimir1155
    Vladimir1155 6 May 2021 23: 37
    0
    and members of the aircraft carrier witness sect will tell you that the TU 160 is outdated because it flies too fast, and that therefore the aircraft carrier will easily run away from planes and satellites, they will fly by and will not notice this bandura tongue
  • Doccor18
    Doccor18 6 May 2021 09: 06
    +5
    For example, if for Peter the Great the military fleet, as a factor, was itself a huge strategic advantage, then in our time, to achieve his goals, Peter Alekseevich would have to use such a huge arsenal of diplomatic, political, economic ...

    I disagree. Peter I built the fleet not to "exist", but for quite specific economic, political and defense tasks. And since that time, little has changed in the tasks of the fleet (adjusted for time and scientific and technological revolution).
    Trends are changing rapidly. And to argue that increasing military power is tantamount to achieving strategic advantage is a dangerous delusion.
    Yeah, tell this to the DPRK (a small poor country with a strong army), Ukraine (if it had a powerful naval group on the Black Sea, and Crimea would not be ours) or India, which frantically began to "draw" contracts for different weapons systems after an insignificant collision with the PLA in the highlands ...
    If we take the situation out of context, considering it exclusively from the point of view of naval confrontation (this is the technique, unfortunately, used by the authors of the Military Review, who are actively lobbying for the interests of the Navy) ...

    And why is it necessary to take something "out of context". Combat Fleet, aircraft carrier including aviation, merchant fleet, Strategic Missile Forces and diplomatic corps of the country - all these are "fingers of one hand" that can be clenched into a fist, but if there is not even one finger, the fist will become defective, and the blow will be weaker. ..
    1. Vladimir1155
      Vladimir1155 6 May 2021 18: 27
      -1
      Quote: Doccor18
      all these are "fingers of one hand" that can be clenched into a fist, but if at least one finger is missing, the fist will become defective,

      are you talking about labor lessons in kindergarten? called "fine motor skills" by the way, it is intended for children under 5 years old then it is no longer interesting
      1. Doccor18
        Doccor18 6 May 2021 22: 40
        +2
        Recently, a smart man wrote an excellent article, the main point of which was that men should always be men. And this is manifested in deeds. Make friends, help, support, learn something from others, become smarter and more experienced and do not stoop to foul language in the framework of discussions ... That's right.
        But there are creatures on the site who set themselves only one goal - to provoke srach. And I would understand if this “activity” was well paid, “money doesn’t smell,” but something tells you that you don’t have a penny for this. And then it is not easy to understand.
        This is not a comment. A burst of puberty ... but you are clearly over 14 years old ...
        1. Vladimir1155
          Vladimir1155 6 May 2021 22: 57
          -2
          Quote: Doccor18
          Make friends, help, support, learn something from others, become smarter and more experienced and do not stoop to foul language in the framework of discussions ... That's right.
          But there are creatures on the site who

          Well, to begin with, you, after all, instead of making arguments, avoided "about the fingers" the technique is called sophistry and the withdrawal of direct dialogue to the side .... and when this did not work, then they started about "helping to make friends" and began to offend without interruption ... you thought to get into the sheepfold and confuse everyone sophistically, but you yourself ended up in a kennel where there are serious men, and you also want to bite ... if you are not a wolf in sheep's clothing?

          Sophistry - the use of sophistry in a discussion; substitution of concepts.
          https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A1%D0%BE%D1%84%D0%B8%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%B0

          Wolf at night, thinking of climbing into a shepherd,
          Got into the kennel.
          Suddenly the whole kindergarten rose -
          Feeling the gray so close to the bully
          Dogs burst into stables and are eager for a fight;
          Psari shout: "Ahti guys thief!" -
          And instantly the gate to constipation;
          In a moment the kennel became hell.
          Run: another with dubai,
          Another with a gun.
          "Fire! - shout, - fire!" They came with fire.
          My Wolf sits huddled in a corner backwards.
          Teeth snapping and bristling wool,
          Through the eyes, it seems, he would like to eat all;
          But seeing what is not here before the herd
          And what finally comes
          To him to settle for sheep, -
          My cunning went
          In negotiations
          And he began like this: “Friends! why all this noise?
          I, your old matchmaker and godfather,
          I came to put up with you, not at all for a quarrel;
          Forget the past, set the general mood!
          And I, not only will not continue to touch the local herds,
          But I’m glad to bicker with them for others
          And with a wolf oath I affirm
          What am I ... "-" Listen, neighbor, -
          Then the hunter interrupted in response, -
          You are gray, and I, mate, sed
          And I have known your wolf for a long time;
          Therefore, my custom:
          With wolves, do not do world otherwise
          How to skin them off. ”
          And then he released a pack of hounds on the Wolf.

          Moral of the fable Wolf in the kennel
          And I have known your wolf for a long time;
          Therefore, my custom:
          With wolves, do not do world otherwise
          How to skin them off.
          1. Doccor18
            Doccor18 7 May 2021 10: 31
            +2
            Quote: vladimir1155
            you thought to get into the sheepfold and confuse everyone sophistically, but you yourself ended up in the kennel ...
            laughingwell, he made fun of me, too, a "wolfhound philosopher" ...
            There is a good fable "The Monkey and the Glasses", read it, you will find a lot of friends there.
            And the comments need to be read in full, and not to snatch out individual phrases or words from them and then think out something without understanding the general meaning.
  • 2 Level Advisor
    2 Level Advisor 6 May 2021 09: 08
    +1
    The author's idea that now the role of the armies of countries - as an instrument of international politics - has diminished - I support .. now "hybrid wars" around the world do not stop with the participation of "big" players ..
    BUT! this does not mean that the army and the navy are not needed .. it rather means that the rules of the game in the 21st century have changed and now, you need to be no less ready for economic, political and other "hybrid" wars than for a "classic" war ..
    what is actually happening in the world now is that they are fighting with us, but not by the army, but by the economy, agents of influence, politically, and the army and navy in such a war are almost useless, playing the role of a fuse against the transition to the plane of "normal" war, but not giving much advantages in other types of wars.
    If about the fleet, then it is certainly needed, but which one should depend on the concept of its use, which I personally have not heard from any of those who "decide", but until it is voiced, all the "broken spears" are simply theory ..
    1. Serg65
      Serg65 6 May 2021 12: 15
      +3
      Quote: Level 2 Advisor
      you need to be no less ready for economic, political, and other "hybrid" wars than for a "classic" war ..

      A classic war with a state with a strong and motivated army is impossible, this is why the "hybrid war" got its development!
      Quote: Level 2 Advisor
      If about the fleet, then it is certainly needed, but which one should depend on the concept of its use, which I personally have not heard from any of those who "decide", but until it is voiced, all the "broken spears" are simply theory ..

      Of those who "decide" this concept for you, no one will voice it, and the concept is constantly changing and this is not the fault of those who "decide"!
      1. 2 Level Advisor
        2 Level Advisor 6 May 2021 16: 10
        0
        Sergey completely agree, our comments do not contradict, but complement each other hi
  • Doccor18
    Doccor18 6 May 2021 09: 13
    +4
    The situation looks similar for the United States - the world's first naval power, the world's first economy, the holder of one of the largest nuclear arsenals for some reason cannot simply assemble hundreds of its warships and swiftly defeat the PRC. Instead, the United States and its allies are fighting "hybrid" wars with Beijing ...

    China has an impressive arsenal of nuclear weapons. Want a third world war? Billionaires overseas want to live, and as long as possible ... And the Americans use their fleet to the fullest. And if a war does happen, the US Navy will play a key role in it. And the Chinese understand all this, therefore they build ships at some incredible pace ...
  • Serg65
    Serg65 6 May 2021 09: 21
    +10
    V.P. Valuev, former commander of the Baltic Fleet of the Russian Federation

    what Anzhej, this is not the same Valuev under which the Baltic Fleet turned into the porn industry ?? Isn't that Valuev, whose chief medical officer on the boat grunted from an overdose?
    laughing good It is gorgeous to attract in the role of an expert on aircraft carriers a person who has one convolution in his head and then from a cap !!!!! laughing laughing crying
    1. ramzay21
      ramzay21 6 May 2021 09: 53
      +2
      He only saw aircraft carriers on TV, damn expert.
    2. Niko
      Niko 6 May 2021 09: 55
      +5
      I was especially interested in the author's epithet: FLEET MAN in this context wassat
    3. Anzhey V.
      6 May 2021 12: 36
      -4
      Anzhej, this is not the same Valuev under which the Baltic Fleet turned into the porn industry ?? Isn't that Valuev, whose chief medical officer on the boat grunted from an overdose?


      So what? Luttwak did not suit the local pretentious public, so he had to get the genius of the domestic scale.

      I reasoned quite rightly that since the retired Klimov with the crazy ideas of defending Kaliningrad with aircraft carriers is an expert, then Valuev will go with a bang laughing
      1. timokhin-aa
        timokhin-aa 6 May 2021 13: 20
        +2
        Luttwak is still a "strategist" if that.
        1. Anzhey V.
          7 May 2021 00: 12
          -1
          Luttwak is still a "strategist" if that


          You are right, utter mediocrity. Such a layman that all his life he worked for the American government as a strategy consultant, wrote reports for the same Andrew Marshall and did all sorts of other stupid things.

          Where is he, wretched, to our level)
          1. timokhin-aa
            timokhin-aa 7 May 2021 02: 03
            -1
            I've read Luttwak. The level is obvious.
      2. Serg65
        Serg65 6 May 2021 14: 20
        +5
        Quote: Anjay V.
        Valuev will come with a bang

        crying Didn't go ...
      3. Artyom Karagodin
        Artyom Karagodin 6 May 2021 19: 39
        0
        retired Klimov with crazy ideas of defense of Kaliningrad by aircraft carriers


        Andrei, Klimov is a specialist in maritime business, since he is just a retirement. You and I, who have not served in the navy for a day, would listen to him. Nobody says that you need to agree with everything, but you need to understand that this is a person who has PERSONAL and VERY RICH experience in naval matters. And calling what he says "delusional ideas" is too presumptuous. It's like a person who studied paleontology at a popular science publishing house arguing with someone who is himself a practicing paleontologist. Weight categories are different. And this must be understood.
      4. timokhin-aa
        timokhin-aa 6 May 2021 19: 53
        +2
        Well, let's talk about the aircraft carrier:

        The Americans train the Poles like Saakashvilli in their time to attack Kaliningrad, deploy several divisions in the Baltic States, then the Psheks attack.
        There is also an American division in the Suvakin corridor, and the United States also notified us that it would not participate in hostilities against the Russian Federation, they simply did not have time to withdraw.
        The United States declares non-participation, sprats too, and calls on the parties to negotiate.

        Can you tell me how to defend the enclave? From Kronstadt to Baltiysk, the troops should move 900 km across the zone, which NATO seems to be completely overseeing, and provides the Poles with reconnaissance and guidance of aircraft and submarines to ships.

        Let's show the class.

        Because of this, my template also cracked quite a bit in its time, but unlike you, I can use a map and a calculator.
        1. Anzhey V.
          6 May 2021 20: 19
          -4
          No problem.

          Since you allow yourself to build a hypothetical strategy, I will do it too.

          First of all, it is necessary to establish a full-fledged puppet regime in Belarus. In general, this should have been done for a long time, and this is very important, but it is not - just like aircraft carriers.

          The government of Belarus declares its full support to Russia in case of military aggression, including by all the armed forces of the republic. It also consents to the deployment of Russian troops and military installations.

          We are actively pumping Belarus and Kaliningrad with offensive weapons. As many as possible OTRK, tank brigades, highly mobile battalion tactical groups, artillery and aviation. Only Poles oppose us, you say? Perfectly.

          In the event of the outbreak of hostilities, several brigades break through a corridor to Kaliningrad along the Lithuanian border and occupy the territories of the Podlaskie and Warmia-Mazury Voivodeships. The main grouping of troops is advancing on Warsaw, Lublin and Krakow, inflicting rocket and artillery strikes on all significant military and infrastructure facilities in Poland - fortunately, it, unfortunately, is not very large and it will be quite simple to implement.

          The Polish Air Force will run out within the first three days of the war. Most of the military facilities are similar. With the establishment of air supremacy, the Poles will not be able to resist for a long time. As a result of the war, we will get a land corridor, cut off the Baltics from Europe, stain the Belarusians with blood and show the world what happens to the Poles when they begin to forget their borders.

          But in fact, the whole process will stop at the point "our troops in unlimited numbers on the territory of the Republic of Belarus." And this is much easier and more profitable to implement than to build aircraft carriers.
          1. timokhin-aa
            timokhin-aa 6 May 2021 20: 48
            +1
            In the event of the outbreak of hostilities, several brigades break through a corridor to Kaliningrad along the Lithuanian border and occupy the territories of the Podlaskie and Warmia-Mazury Voivodeships. The main grouping of troops is advancing on Warsaw, Lublin and Krakow, inflicting rocket and artillery strikes on all significant military and infrastructure facilities in Poland - fortunately, it, unfortunately, is not very large and it will be quite simple to implement.


            I wrote that an American division was stationed there. Are you always so attentive?
            Or in order not to build a fleet, we need to attack US troops, formally neutral?
            And if you go around to the south, you will have to conquer the whole of Poland, with corresponding losses.
            The aircraft carrier is somehow cheaper, and even a dozen aircraft carriers too.
            If you measure in people.

            We are actively pumping Belarus and Kaliningrad with offensive weapons.


            What for? They will also "run out" under the first blow, almost the entire enclave is under fire from the Poles' heavy weapons. You won't even have to step on. Besides, this whole crowd must be supplied. One motorized rifle brigade requires about 2000-2500 tons of fuel alone per day, where can we get all this from? In relation to the enclave, of course?

            The Polish Air Force will run out within the first three days of the war. Most of the military facilities are similar.


            And how are we going to destroy them? By planes? Without violating the airspace of neutrals, they can fly only from Belarus, we exclude 1000+ km over the Baltic, NATO E-3s will work closer to the western territories of Poland, all the traveling reconnaissance of the West will work on the Polish Air Force, they will be able to carry out combat missions through airfields in the third countries that are not fighting against us directly and even formally condemning Poland.

            Maybe you are going to solve the Problem with cruise missiles? Or Iskander? But we need thousands of missiles, we don't have so many even close.

            But in fact, the whole process will stop at the point "our troops in unlimited numbers on the territory of the Republic of Belarus." And this is much easier and more profitable to implement than to build aircraft carriers.

            The Georgians knew about the concentration of troops 58A, but this did not stop them.
            1. Anzhey V.
              6 May 2021 21: 03
              -6
              I wrote that an American division was stationed there. Are you always so attentive?


              Do you always indulge in rudeness without reading what is written?

              You gave introductions to US troops in the Baltics. I did not speak about an offensive through Lithuania - only along its border in the indicated voivodships of Poland.

              What for? They will also "run out" under the first blow, almost the entire enclave is under fire from the Poles' heavy weapons. You won't even have to step on.


              The Poles will be on an equal footing. Reconnaissance signs before the attack will show themselves in one way or another, so it is possible to arrange a missile and artillery exchange.

              And how are we going to destroy them? By planes? Without violating the airspace of neutrals, they can fly only from Belarus,


              We now have Belarus, we fly from it.

              NATO E-3s will work, the Polish Air Force will have all the travel intelligence of the West working, they will be able to carry out combat missions through airfields in third countries that are not fighting us directly and even formally condemning Poland.


              Why doesn't this work for an aircraft carrier?)

              Here the conditions will be equal for both the navy and the army. You know that too.

              Georgians knew about the concentration of troops 58A, but it did not stop them


              If it does not stop the Poles, I have described the scenario. The only question here is political will, and here we have a problem with you, regardless of what we want to use - tanks, aircraft carriers or sabotage.
              1. Artyom Karagodin
                Artyom Karagodin 6 May 2021 23: 33
                0
                I did not speak about an offensive through Lithuania - only along its border in the indicated voivodships of Poland.

                It is Podlaskie Voivodeship that is an integral part of the Suwalki Corridor. NATO is already practicing its defense in the exercises with might and main. There is no doubt that in the scenario proposed by Alexander they will close it tightly. Or they are just sick in the head.
                1. Anzhey V.
                  7 May 2021 00: 17
                  -1


                  It passes through the territory of Lithuania.

                  There were no introductions regarding the American troops in Poland. If they are there, it means that the scenario is initially delusional and the rates are increased. AB will not help.
                  1. Artyom Karagodin
                    Artyom Karagodin 7 May 2021 00: 48
                    0
                    From Wikipedia
                    At present, the border between Poland and Lithuania runs along this territory. Named after the Polish city of Suwalki located on the territory of the corridor

                    You can find many other confirmations and not from Wikipedia.
                    1. Anzhey V.
                      7 May 2021 01: 03
                      -2
                      Here, I repeat, the introductory was different. If the Americans are sitting in Lithuania on the border with Poland, this is one thing.

                      If they also sit in the Polish voivodships, then this is completely different. However, I do not see any great value of the aircraft carrier, in this situation it will not be more useful than the ground forces.

                      In any case, everything rests on the control of Belarus.
                      1. Artyom Karagodin
                        Artyom Karagodin 7 May 2021 01: 35
                        -1
                        There is also an American division in the Suwalki corridor

                        So Timokhin wrote. This is not about Lithuania, but about the corridor itself. You are not right.

                        As for the aircraft carriers in the Baltic, I will not undertake to judge, not an expert. But about the need-uselessness of AB in principle - I repeat: no one I did not hear any significant argument from their opponents. Including from you. Your calculations remind something like: "Why do we need a hammer (or a screwdriver)? We have pliers, chisels and a screwdriver. We can do it just fine." So my logic tells me that all the tools are needed if we seriously want to work on something. Returning to the field of politics, we need a fleet (including aircraft carriers), and effective NPOs, and much more. If we want to remain who we are. Empire.
                      2. Anzhey V.
                        7 May 2021 11: 17
                        0
                        Your calculations remind something like: "Why do we need a hammer (or screwdriver)? We have pliers, chisels and a screwdriver.


                        Do you know why you didn't hear?)

                        That's why:

                        If we want to remain who we are. Empire.


                        You continue to view us as an empire. Accordingly, you measure everything in the same way - now I understand why you consider AB so important for the country.

                        The problem is that we are not an empire. We are a country, another country that lives on its ruins, and which still has some attributes of an empire and, perhaps, a lot of ambition.

                        But every year we understand less and less how to handle the tools we received from the empire. We are defending ourselves within our own borders - our country has shrunk to the size it had centuries ago. We are not guided by the situation, our ambitions are alien even to our allies. For a long time ago, the main demand among the people was solely to finally have money and a quiet life (and these are not my words - this is sociology).

                        Why am I against the navy? Because this is an attribute of a country that we haven’t built yet - we didn’t even understand that it needs to be built.

                        And the fleet can kill the country that already exists.
                      3. Artyom Karagodin
                        Artyom Karagodin 7 May 2021 11: 49
                        0
                        Quote: Anjay V.
                        And the fleet can kill the country that already exists.

                        It was written here in detail that we can already afford a fairly powerful fleet at the current level of spending on it. The problem is that there is production capacity, and there are funds, only they are spent ineffectively in their bulk.

                        And, forgive me, I do not understand you. In one place you write that you are not against the navy, here it is exactly the opposite. be clear about what you mean.

                        Further. We have already spoken about the problems with goal-setting, and I see no reason to return to this. And by Empire, I mean not a superpower, but a country of the same scale as ours. Geographically and ethnically. If we cannot defend ourselves, including from the sea, then we will be torn apart and the territory of Russia will shrink from the level of the XNUMXth century to the size of the times of Ivan the Great. I meant it.

                        I'm not talking about the fact that AVs are needed, I'm just repeating this thought after the naval SPECIALISTS. You are NOT an expert, so your confidence in the correctness of your own thoughts about the fleet, to be honest, is puzzling.

                        For example, Kuzin and Nikolsky in their book say that AV are needed. Are they the only ones? The dispute between the specialists only revolves around what kind of aircraft carrier we need. And here we come back to the problem of goal setting. Let's figure out what kind of future we want to provide for Russia, and everything else will be clear. Including what we need a fleet, air force and so on.
                      4. Anzhey V.
                        7 May 2021 12: 26
                        0
                        It was written here in detail that we can already afford a fairly powerful fleet.


                        Artem, let's not manipulate facts)

                        AiCh himself said that his calculations were going on for 30-40 years. Do you understand that the country does not even have a margin of safety for such a period?

                        We do not know what will happen in 10 years, and Tomahawks from Donald Cook will not be to blame for that.

                        By empire, I do not mean a superpower, but a country of the same scale as ours. Geographically and ethnically.


                        Empire is an economic and political formation. There are no ethnic and territorial empires; these are, I repeat, sweet dreams about what does not exist.

                        An empire is a developed infrastructure, a vast zone of influence, and a political strategy. This is short.

                        thought behind the naval SPECIALISTS. You are NOT an expert, so your confidence in the correctness of your own thoughts about the fleet, to be honest, is puzzling


                        And you did not think that the "specialists" receive money for this - including from the share allocated to the fleet?

                        It's just like if the cigarette manufacturers go to fight smoking.

                        In addition, in no country in the world does the military determine the strategy of the state. We have already gone through this with the USSR, haven't we?
                      5. Artyom Karagodin
                        Artyom Karagodin 7 May 2021 12: 58
                        0
                        Quote: Anjay V.
                        Empire is an economic and political formation. There are no ethnic and territorial empires; these are, I repeat, sweet dreams about what does not exist.

                        An empire is a developed infrastructure, a vast zone of influence, and a political strategy. This is short.

                        So I misused the term. But I meant exactly what I meant.

                        AiCh himself said that his calculations were going on for 30-40 years. Do you understand that the country does not even have a margin of safety for such a period?

                        I did not understand the claim at all. If we give up these expenses, then we will gain a margin of safety, or what? I did not understand in what way I was manipulating the facts. I meant that if the money that was allocated for the Navy, starting in 2012, were spent correctly, the picture would be completely different. Now. Where is the manipulation of facts? Did I assert that the composition of the fleet, withdrawn by Andrey, we might have already literally tomorrow?

                        And you did not think that the "specialists" receive money for this - including from the share allocated to the fleet?

                        What is this generally said, explain? This begs the question of where you get your money from. Is it from the Air Force? The accusation is stupid, I agree, but do not find similarities in the argumentation? Or then explain what we are talking about. To be honest, I somehow began to lose the thread of the conversation.
                      6. Anzhey V.
                        8 May 2021 11: 19
                        -1
                        Or then explain what we are talking about. To be honest, I somehow began to lose the thread of the conversation.


                        Therefore, I propose to finish)

                        The degree of heat between you and me begins to go off-scale in the wrong direction, and I don't want to quarrel over anything with you.

                        I did not understand the claim at all. If we give up these expenses, then we will gain a margin of safety, or what?


                        Let's just say - there are state investments of a fundamental nature, which may even survive the collapse of the state and will continue to support the economy of the new one. And they can even postpone or stop this process.

                        There are second-tier investments that, even at the best of times, serve as a waste.

                        Which country is the fleet useful to? The one with a global strategy.

                        We do not have such a strategy, but there are more than enough areas in which this money will be of great benefit. Translating everything into philistine categories, it's like having tight finances and an uncertain future to buy not a pass for a month, new shoes and food, but an inflatable boat, so that later, hypothetically, swim on it in Lake Baikal - although who knows if we will have means and possibilities of travel to him?
                      7. Artyom Karagodin
                        Artyom Karagodin 8 May 2021 12: 24
                        0
                        There was no question of quarreling. Everything is fine. My comment on "reverence" is indeed an island, but let's call it in the latest fashion "designating red lines" for the future.

                        As for the fleet, you have not convinced, but we, apparently, will never agree with each other on this, so yes, it is better to finish. The positions are indicated in as much detail as possible, and this is quite enough))). Happy Victory Day to you!
                      8. Anzhey V.
                        8 May 2021 12: 34
                        -4
                        And you, Artem)

                        we, apparently, will never agree on this with each other


                        Who knows, suddenly someone here will still be able to justify the need for a fleet and I will be imbued)
                      9. Artyom Karagodin
                        Artyom Karagodin 8 May 2021 13: 16
                        0
                        Considering the current discussion, not likely.
      5. timokhin-aa
        timokhin-aa 7 May 2021 01: 54
        0
        in this situation he will not be more useful than the ground forces.


        In this situation, he will allow you to do without them (except for the troops in the enclave). As well as the fleet in general.
        It will allow you not to drive conscripts into battle.
      6. Anzhey V.
        7 May 2021 10: 59
        -1
        I wonder how the enclave will be helped by three dozen aircraft from the conditional "Kuznetsov"?

        Are you at least approximately aware of the subject of the conversation? Do you think that the Poles' advantage in the form of complete coverage of the entire area with artillery, superiority in reconnaissance and the like will disappear somewhere?

        How many F-16s are there in Europe and how will you determine their belonging during the battles? If the Poles, as you say, take off "from third countries", then in this way they will guarantee themselves superiority in the air - they will temporarily "grow" several dozen "efoks" and that's it.

        The static defense of the enclave is doomed. You know this as well as I do. No one will have time to send any "convoys" there, even if there is an aircraft carrier in bare defense, Kaliningrad will stand no more than a week.

        An attack on NATO must begin with a disarming nuclear strike against the United States, and an operation to destroy American SSBNs.
        But you seemed to be against the fleet?


        Do you already in your fantasies decide whether we are at war with the Poles, or with the entire NATO bloc?

        Well, that's what I'm talking about - the enclave cannot be protected from there.


        Yes, it can only be defended from the sea in conditions of complete fire superiority of the enemy, which, moreover, will have air superiority and will certainly save several dozen anti-ship missiles for you.

        By the way, what will you do if, say, a strike group from the British, French and American fleets enters the Baltic before the start of hostilities, and announces: guys, we can't let anyone 200 kilometers to Kaliningrad, the evil, stupid Poles fell asleep are there all mines?

        You like inadequate introductions, so let's)

        You, as usual, do not quite own the subject - this is what the word "corridor" means.


        Unlike you, I do not suffer from fantasy and I think logically - so
        no need to push from a sore head to a healthy one.

        Do you want to say that the Americans, on the eve of hostilities, will drive a division into a deliberate encirclement on the territory of the aggressor country (!)? On the territory of Lithuania and the border part of Podlaskie - possible. In all Podlaskie - no. And we will still need to capture several voivodeships, incl. Mazowiecki and Lublin.

        This is a contrived problem that you pedal when writing fairy tales about the static defense of the enclave.

        If you continue to sail in unrealistic scenarios, trying with all your might to attract the importance of the fleet - I do not want to say more.

        It is interesting for me to read what you write, but it is completely uninteresting to discuss things like “since there is a river in the city, you have to swim on it, not take a bus”.
      7. timokhin-aa
        timokhin-aa 11 May 2021 21: 27
        0
        I wonder how the enclave will be helped by three dozen aircraft from the conditional "Kuznetsov"?


        Air defense of convoys to the enclave, partially air defense of the enclave, aerial reconnaissance, an escort of strike aircraft, an escort of air mine laying.

        How many F-16s are there in Europe and how will you determine their belonging during the battles? If the Poles, as you say, take off "from third countries", then in this way they will guarantee themselves superiority in the air - they will temporarily "grow" several dozen "efoks" and that's it.


        And all at the same time attacking one target, yeah.

        The static defense of the enclave is doomed.


        Why static? You think at the level of a basic program - or one or the other. You will be surprised to learn how many different options there are, between a static defense and a march to the Vistula over American corpses under the flares of nuclear explosions.

        Do you already in your fantasies decide whether we are at war with the Poles, or with the entire NATO bloc?


        You do not understand what you are writing. If we were attacked by Poland, albeit with some obvious Gleiwitz incident, then it may well be a war only with Poland with the passive assistance of NATO. If we hit first, then it will be a different story, if you do not understand.

        By the way, what will you do if, say, a strike group from the British, French and American fleets enters the Baltic before the start of hostilities, and announces: guys, we can't let anyone 200 kilometers to Kaliningrad, the evil, stupid Poles fell asleep are there all mines?


        Decent people meet such guests with a reinforced outfit of forces even at the Danish Straits. On the west side.

        Unlike you, I do not suffer from fantasy and I think logically - so
        no need to push from a sore head to a healthy one.


        Unlike me, you talked about the Suvalkinsky corridor without knowing what it was. This fact has been recorded.

        And we will still need to capture several voivodeships, incl. Mazowiecki and Lublin.


        We will need a quick withdrawal of Poland from the war at the cost of minimal losses for the Poles too.
  • timokhin-aa
    timokhin-aa 7 May 2021 01: 53
    0
    You, as usual, do not quite own the subject - this is what the word "corridor" means.



    In general, Suwalki is one of the classic operational problems, such as the defense / breakthrough of the Fulda corridor, the invasion of France from Germany, etc.
    When discussing the war in Eastern Europe, you need to know these things.
    If the Americans plug it, then we will not be able to break through the corridor to the enclave.
    1. Vladimir1155
      Vladimir1155 8 May 2021 15: 09
      +1
      Quote: timokhin-aa
      In general, Suwalki is one of the classic operational problems, such as the defense / breakthrough of the Fulda corridor, the invasion of France from Germany, etc.

      you look like an iron lumberjack unable to walk around a closed gate
  • timokhin-aa
    timokhin-aa 7 May 2021 01: 59
    0
    You gave introductions to American troops in the Baltics.


    And the corridor is not only the Baltics.

    The Poles will be on an equal footing. Reconnaissance signs before the attack will show themselves in one way or another, so it is possible to arrange a missile and artillery exchange.


    An attack on NATO must begin with a disarming nuclear strike against the United States, and an operation to destroy American SSBNs.
    But you seemed to be against the fleet?

    We now have Belarus, we fly from it.


    Well, that's what I'm talking about - the enclave cannot be protected from there.

    Why doesn't this work for an aircraft carrier?)


    Because the deck ships will not climb into central Poland and to the west.
    They need to cover the convoys to the enclave, ensure the work of mines to mine Polish ports from the air, and prevent the Poles from using their NKs to counter our convoys.
    To keep communication, in short, plus air defense over the enclave.
    Plus an escort of strike aircraft from the Russian Federation.

    If it does not stop the Poles, I have described the scenario.


    So you will already rewrite it, taking into account the circumstances that you have just studied, which are new to you.
    1. Serg65
      Serg65 7 May 2021 13: 50
      +1
      Quote: timokhin-aa
      To keep communication, in short, plus air defense over the enclave.
      Plus an escort of strike aircraft from the Russian Federation.

      Here, in the first blow, there is only hope for reckless heroism in the counterstrike of the 11th corps and the coastal units of the Baltic Fleet, and the illusory hope for the weak morale of the Poles ...
    2. Vladimir1155
      Vladimir1155 8 May 2021 19: 14
      0
      Quote: timokhin-aa
      So you will already rewrite it, taking into account the circumstances that you have just studied, which are new to you.

      you better rewrite your script with the respected Maxim Klimov, which crashed about the objectivity of the existence of land ... and the constraint by the draft of all aircraft carriers ..... Kaliningrad is the westernmost port of Russia. It is located in the southeastern part
      Baltic Sea at the mouth of the Pregolya River. The port connects with the sea Kaliningradsky
      sea ​​channel, 23 miles long. The shallowest depth on it is 9,0 m.
      passing draft of vessels is 8,0 m. The length of vessels in this case should not exceed 170
      m. ....
      Baltiysk seaport

      Russia

      Baltic Sea
      DEPTH
      WATER
      9-10,5 m
      MAXIMUM LENGTH OF VESSELS
      200 m ......

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ruWRFTZbXZU
      1. Vladimir1155
        Vladimir1155 8 May 2021 19: 24
        0
        https://www.rosmorport.ru/filials/spb_serv_berth/ вообще о авианосец стесненный осадкой не войдет вообще, ни в один морской и речной порт РФ Балтийского моря, да и посреди Маркизовой лужи сядет на мель.... неужели Климов и Тимохин моряк этого не знают
  • Serg65
    Serg65 7 May 2021 12: 43
    +1
    Quote: timokhin-aa
    Well come on

    what Nifiga yourself you have a fantasy, Sasha !!!! Although the option has the right to life !!!
  • Vladimir1155
    Vladimir1155 8 May 2021 15: 01
    0
    Quote: timokhin-aa
    Can you tell me how to defend the enclave? From Kronstadt to Baltiysk, the troops should move 900 km across the zone, which NATO seems to be completely overseeing, and provides the Poles with reconnaissance and guidance of aircraft and submarines to ships.

    that's it, and how do you imagine an aircraft carrier there if the airborne missiles do not even pass? your fantasies have gone beyond common sense, "Poland has declared war on Russia with the neutrality of the United States and the Baltic states, but the United States is in Suwalki?" ..... very strange! do not allow us to go through the Suwalki swamps, we will go through Warsaw, by train, ... or rather, past Warsaw, because in the place of Warsaw there will already be a large radioactive crater, and we will not ask Lithuania, there is such a trick "give us a pass, if you do not give us, let's go ourselves through our historically Vilnius "the independence of Lithuania is illegal! Ask Mannerheim, he will tell who is in charge here
  • timokhin-aa
    timokhin-aa 7 May 2021 02: 08
    +1
    The retired Klimov has work in the PAD control group behind his back, during the exercises to destroy the AUG of the US Navy, work in the submarine crew on a real order from the AB, hundreds of simulated operations to destroy aircraft carrier groups, he was in the crew, which found out the real maximum (sort of like ) the speed of "Los Angeles" without an impeller (38 knots) and their crew almost paid with their lives for this information.

    Klimov understands these issues, do not hesitate.
    1. Anzhey V.
      7 May 2021 11: 09
      -2
      I have not lived for the first day and have heard enough stories about merits from people of higher rank than Klimov. This is not usually the case in life, but come on, I'm not judging.

      You can shield and protect him as much as you want, but his reputation and behavior speaks of everything better than any words.

      The hysterical fits that he rolls on VO in the comments are also more than typical.
      1. Artyom Karagodin
        Artyom Karagodin 7 May 2021 12: 04
        0
        I have not lived for the first day and have heard enough stories about merits from people of higher rank than Klimov. This is not usually the case in life, but come on, I'm not judging.

        Andrei, this is simply not fair. You, sorry, solder a lie to Klimov, although simply comparing the level of your materials and his, and with the naked eye it becomes clear that in terms of owning materiel you are against him - preschool children. It's a shame, right. Or is it not a shame?
        1. Anzhey V.
          7 May 2021 12: 18
          0
          It's funny. Why should I be ashamed?

          I do not meddle in naval warfare issues. I have another task - to show a large audience in an accessible and understandable language the falsity of the "naval approach".

          By the way, it was Klimov who got into the sphere of modern international politics, where he could only shout hysterically about the fact that there were only amateurs around.

          So if you think that I should be in awe of the next retirement - thank you. I only have reverence for people from one fine department of three letters.
          1. Artyom Karagodin
            Artyom Karagodin 7 May 2021 12: 40
            0
            I do not meddle in naval warfare issues. I have another task - to show a large audience in an accessible and understandable language the falsity of the "naval approach".


            Do you see a contradiction in what has been said? To assert that in big politics the navy is not needed now does not mean that a person touches on the issues of naval war? Sorry, but that sounds very silly.

            Second, I’m not talking about reverence, I don’t need to present such accusations - neither now nor in the future. I take this as an insult. I mean that Klimov is a specialist (albeit a difficult person to communicate, judging by the comments), a really experienced naval retiree. And your statement suggests that this is all nothing more than fables, a lie, in other words. What is it for? In this regard, there are much more reasons to accuse you of lying. However, talking about shame is really superfluous here, I agree.
      2. timokhin-aa
        timokhin-aa 11 May 2021 21: 09
        -1
        You should know how I sometimes imprint bad guys - both in life and on the Internet especially.
        I was brought up here for a year, banned for a month and a half, preventive conversations were conducted, etc. Politeness doesn't come easy.
        It is not necessary to judge by a person how he communicates with people who are not serious in his opinion.

        People are usually multifaceted, so to speak. This applies to Maxim in full measure.
  • pyagomail.ru
    pyagomail.ru 6 May 2021 09: 21
    +2
    I agree with the author on the following: first you need to understand the problem, and then solve it. Not to build, for example, an aircraft carrier (and all its support), and then come up with where to use it - if only to "indicate presence", then somehow unconvincing. I think when and if Russia needs aircraft carriers, they will be built.
  • Stanislav82
    Stanislav82 6 May 2021 09: 23
    +6
    My opinion. First, it is necessary to clearly define what tasks this fleet should perform for the state and what wishes our economy and technological capabilities will pull (for example, I did not know about problems with engines) and the presence of institutions that will train specialists for shipbuilding. Then you need to deal with the hodgepodge that remained from the USSR and remakes. To come to a common denominator because something will have to be put on pins and needles.
    1. TerraSandera
      TerraSandera 6 May 2021 12: 36
      +4
      Aircraft carriers have much more problems, starting with where to build them, docking, repairs, to the "stuffing": catapults, aircraft, engines, AWACS aircraft of acceptable size, for landing and much more, about which (we) are not dedicated and notions we do not have. They need to be built not 1 or 2, and in any case they will come out less, more limited, in terms of capabilities, well. quantity. And it will take sooooo much time, not to mention the money. Pros? They are. But at the same time, leadership is needed that does not depend on friends who have everything in the West. Otherwise, when it is necessary and possible to use them, Faberge may not be enough. And it is very expensive to use as flag demonstrators.
    2. Vladimir1155
      Vladimir1155 6 May 2021 18: 37
      0
      Quote: Stanislav82
      My opinion. First, it is necessary to clearly define what tasks this fleet should perform for the state and what wishes our economy and technological capabilities will pull (for example, I did not know about problems with engines) and the presence of institutions that will train specialists for shipbuilding. Then you need to deal with the hodgepodge that remained from the USSR and remakes. To come to a common denominator because something will have to be put on pins and needles.

      this is obvious, but the proponents of aircraft carriers are diligently avoiding the obvious and hovering like pink ponies in the clouds of their dreams, and the vulgar truth that there is no money, no slipway, no berth tasks, no equipment for AV , this is a baby saloon nursery group "buy daddy", "" I want a toy aaaaa "
  • ban
    ban 6 May 2021 09: 31
    0
    The pest wrote the article
    1. timokhin-aa
      timokhin-aa 6 May 2021 19: 54
      +1
      Conscious and consistent.
      1. Artyom Karagodin
        Artyom Karagodin 6 May 2021 23: 37
        0
        Aren't you exaggerating? Little does he write to the people about what he does not understand? In my opinion, this is exactly the case. So what about the "pest" you can still think about, since incompetent calculations always bring harm, but about the deliberate one - isn't it too much?
        1. timokhin-aa
          timokhin-aa 7 May 2021 02: 09
          -2
          He is not out of malice that this is all "sculpts"?
          1. Artyom Karagodin
            Artyom Karagodin 7 May 2021 09: 44
            0
            Something like that. Vorontsov just “hype”, apparently, when he writes about the Tu-160 and so on. And when he receives arguments in response, he begins to act according to the principle "from under seven gates and seven dogs each, and I got rid of the food."

            And here a person really believes in what he writes. This does not add competence to him, anyway, with my knowledge, I would start talking about the prospects for the development of air defense, for example. But can this be called deliberate sabotage? I think no. Here "I wanted the best," and not sabotage.
  • ramzay21
    ramzay21 6 May 2021 09: 51
    +3
    Big politics is economic power plus military power. Taiwan and the Vatican do not need a strong navy; they are protected by the Americans. But will the Americans defend Taiwan against a powerful China when it builds a powerful fleet? And this time is not far off.
    China already has two AUGs in service, soon it will have a full-fledged aircraft carrier, with AWACS aircraft that are already flying. UDC will be added to this, and then you will see the capture of Taiwan.

    Our leaders are busy lining their pockets and need neither a strong economy nor military might.
  • S. Viktorovich
    S. Viktorovich 6 May 2021 10: 02
    +2
    Neither the protection of its own sea lanes, nor the disruption of the enemy's communications are the main tasks of the Russian fleet, which should determine its appearance. At this stage, there is only one strategic task - to ensure the use of NSNF, and the fleet should be created for it. The rest of the tasks, such as the Syrian expedition, are leftover.
  • Bez 310
    Bez 310 6 May 2021 10: 50
    -1
    Interesting article.
    Why does Russia need a Fleet? First of all - NSNF, and the means of their support. Something else? All other tasks are far-fetched nonsense, like protecting the NSR and guarding Iranian ships. CD carrier ships? Unfortunately, there are not enough CDs, and RTOs look like a parody of warships. I think the apotheosis of stupidity is the "restoration" of the TAVKR "Kuzya", which is ridiculous and absurd. In general, these admirals themselves do not know what they need, except for a large number of admiral's posts.
    1. Anzhey V.
      6 May 2021 11: 28
      -1
      Hello Bez!

      I'm glad that at least someone understood me correctly ...
      1. Bez 310
        Bez 310 6 May 2021 11: 45
        -2
        Quote: Anjay V.
        I'm glad that at least someone understood me correctly ...

        I always try to understand what I read ...
      2. Serg65
        Serg65 6 May 2021 12: 19
        +2
        Quote: Anjay V.
        I'm glad that at least someone understood me correctly ...

        lol You have love ...
        1. KKND
          KKND 6 May 2021 13: 32
          +1
          Quote: Anjay V.
          I'm glad that at least someone understood me correctly ...

          Quote: Serg65
          You have love ...

          The author was told about the minuses "for the most tomatoes" so he wanted love and understanding. wassat
      3. alstr
        alstr 6 May 2021 20: 14
        +2
        I would like to add the following:
        Even if we build a super duper fleet, then we have ONLY FOUR points where ships of solid displacement can be built and repaired: Peter, Severodvinsk \ Murmansk, Vladivostok and Crimea.
        ALL these shipyards are under fire by the Kyrgyz Republic from land from the territory of NATO countries and their allies - i.e. without the participation of the fleet, ALL our shipyards can be destroyed. Moreover, ALL of our naval bases are also under fire by the CD.
        Therefore, there is a high probability of the destruction of the fleet in their bases. But even if the fleet survives, there will be nowhere to restore combat damage, tk. shipyards, unlike ships, cannot move (and there are no actual shipyards for large ships - this is hello to Kuznetsov).

        Hence it follows that our fleet will be DISPOSABLE, i.e. before the first serious fight.

        And now a little about China. Here on the way I listened to Vesti FM. So they said the following:
        There is a vaccine war. And the pressure on the Chinese vaccine is the same as on ours, but China has learned to negotiate and its vaccine is widely used despite the same sanctions as against our vaccine. But the peculiarity is that China has managed to depoliticize the vaccine issue as much as possible. Moreover, he promotes his other interests under this vaccine. Those. The standard is the scheme for the delivery of vaccines in the form of humanitarian aid or at a minimal price, but in a package with the provision of some preferences to China. In addition, the following idea was voiced there: China, unlike Russia, can provide the widest range of services and goods, which is called a bundle. But unfortunately, this is not accepted in our country (and in the USSR, the service was always not very good).

        Or another example, China recently punished Astvralia seriously for assenting to the United States. He simply imposed duties on wine and meat. As a result, 40% of wine exports are in the red in Australia. So much so that wine is poured into the ground. It's the same with meat.

        This is an example of soft power. And no aircraft carriers, and the losses will be just a couple of aircraft carriers.
    2. Serg65
      Serg65 6 May 2021 12: 18
      +3
      Quote: Bez 310
      Interesting article.

      what I really thought that I would not see this exceptional phrase ... I was mistaken laughing
  • strannik1985
    strannik1985 6 May 2021 11: 35
    +3
    An excellent example of a crafty "analysis". Particularly noteworthy is the example of Israel - a country whose ally is the United States, a country with the world's strongest fleet, one of whose AUG is constantly deployed in a theater of operations good
    And how the RF Armed Forces will provide cargo transportation to Syria by means of naval aviation, the respected analyst does not answer in any way. Of course, Russia needs to focus on its borders fool
    1. Anzhey V.
      6 May 2021 11: 56
      -2
      Particularly noteworthy is the example of Israel - a country whose ally is the United States, a country with the world's strongest fleet, one of whose AUG is constantly deployed in a theater of operations


      Something I do not remember that the US AUG defended Israel in at least one war in any way other than presence.

      And, if you are not aware, the basis of Israeli strategic doctrines is solely self-reliance.

      The RF Armed Forces will provide cargo transportation to Syria by means of naval aviation


      Here you have come up with it yourself, and you yourself made a mistake.
      1. Serg65
        Serg65 6 May 2021 14: 43
        +3
        Quote: Anjay V.
        if you are not aware, Israeli strategic doctrines are based solely on self-reliance.

        what And the participation of 192 American military pilots in Operation Focus during the Six Day War? And what about the actions of reconnaissance aircraft from the 38th Squadron of the US Air Force, in the same war? And by the way ... AV "Saratoga" was on the traverse of Haifa and by its mere presence made the Egyptians melancholy ...
      2. Artyom Karagodin
        Artyom Karagodin 6 May 2021 19: 44
        0
        Something I do not remember that the US AUG defended Israel in at least one war in any way other than presence.


        Presence is a sign of a willingness to use your AUG. In 1973, they were ready to defend Israel, but they could not, because our KUG were present there. Gorshkov and his associates developed such a tactic of application that the entire 70th US fleet, although it outnumbered ours, could not oppose anything to such tactics. In the 80s, they overtook us, but we did not have time to find an adequate answer. But that was later. And if you remember the Indo-Pakistani war and a couple of other incidents?
  • Knell wardenheart
    Knell wardenheart 6 May 2021 11: 38
    +3
    The reality around us is that the very concept of "war" has practically died as an independent factor in international politics

    For this one thesis I take off my hat, the author. That's right - now most of the meaningful countries are woven into a tight knot of long-term alliances and economies, the world has globalized very strongly and the "real politician" has flowed not into the hands of strong armies, but into the hands of strong economic unions. Sanctions, isolation and torpedoing economic initiatives are at times as effective as massive and destructive air raids.
    In the modern sense, the Armed Forces play the role of "raising the threshold of entry" into a major war, but the real influence is usually economics, logistics, technologies in close cohesion.

    Despite numerous enthusiastic statements, the NSR will never be able to become even a remote alternative to, for example, the Suez Canal.

    Second reasonable thought. Russia has never been famous for its service and the Arctic climate is a parable in tongues. We can chop off some share, but for many decades after that this "chopping off" will pay off at a snail's pace due to the specifics of the pass and format.

    If there are no economic interests, then there is nothing to defend.

    And the third reasonable thought. I have here repeatedly defended a similar thesis - a strong fleet and some kind of global activity of other Armed Forces is what comes after or on a par with the expansion of the economy outward on a broad front. Our economy is practically not growing - therefore there are no prerequisites for strengthening the fleet and the growth of ambitions directed outward.


    Thus, the Soviet Navy was actively built in the name of promoting Soviet interests by strengthening the military presence. As practice has shown, this approach turned out to be absolutely ineffective: despite the growth of the Union's naval power by the 80s, the Soviet zone of influence in the world was only rapidly narrowing, collapsing on the verge of extinction.

    The USSR was maniacally increasing the "entry threshold" and without that having an overwhelming advantage in nuclear weapons, making this parameter its maximum. The countries to which we oriented our policy outward, as a rule, threw or twisted us around the finger using economic or political instruments. Here our Armed Forces could have helped very conditionally - the use of the Armed Forces to "resolve questions" in Afghanistan did have very sad consequences.
    Of course, a strong fleet was one of the factors that our "partners" behaved much less arrogantly off our shores, but the strengthening of our fleet provoked a response to the strengthening of the fleet of our "partners", who had incomparably great economic opportunities for this, as it actually contributed greater consolidation of their single block. Strictly speaking, it was a race to exhaustion from which there would be three ways out - loss, war, innovative modernization of industry and economy, which in theory should bring us to a completely different level of cost, quality and efficiency of production and R&D development. The last option, as we were drawn into the arms race, had less and less free resources and brains to implement - the ruined idea of ​​OGAS and the sad development of domestic microelectronics, among many other factors, put an end to this option.
    The option with "War" was clearly not considered by the leadership of the USSR - it cannot be said that it was bad, but over the years our strategy more and more looked not like the hope of "containment by fear", which left the Americans considerable scope for actions in gray zones and methods that are now conventionally called "hybrid war".

    The fleet and powerful American aircraft carriers in this scheme played the role of a means of increasing influence in dangerous directions, and by no means an instrument of its advance.

    The Americans were much better at planning at all levels than we were. Within this planning, their fleet was another means of raising stakes, and their opponents usually knew that behind all this activity there was not only intimidation and escalation, but also some kind of "big plan", multi-domain activity, as they like to say now.

    In this section, I propose to resort to the experience of a different, but strangely similar to our country.

    To the experience of Israel.

    Israel is expanding with a toad-jumping strategy, intelligently giving the initiative to its close-minded opponents and opposing this initiative with better planning, better motivation and preparation, and much more "multi-domain" than its opponents. The small territory and the competent policy of the formation of the army makes it a small evil fortress with large cannons and long arms - we, alas, cannot adopt this strategy. And our opponents are more dangerous and more capable.

    Big politics doesn't require a large fleet, friends.

    Big politics requires a lot of intelligence.


    For all this I will tell you this, Anzhej V. Write more. You're doing well.
    1. Dart2027
      Dart2027 6 May 2021 11: 53
      +2
      Quote: Knell Wardenheart
      The reality around us is that the very concept of "war" has practically died as an independent factor in international politics

      For this one thesis I take off my hat, the author. That's right - now most of the meaningful countries are woven into a tight knot of long-term alliances and economies, the world has globalized very strongly and the "real politician" has flowed not into the hands of strong armies, but into the hands of strong economic unions.

      Karl von Clausewitz, treatise "On War":
      24. War is a continuation of politics, only by other means
      War is not only a political act, but also a true instrument of politics, the continuation of political relations, their conduct by other means. That specific, which is inherent in war, refers only to the nature of the means it uses. The art of war in general and the commander in each individual case have the right to demand that the direction and intentions of politics do not conflict with these means. Such a claim, of course, is not unimportant, but no matter how strongly it may influence political tasks in individual cases, nevertheless this influence should be thought of only as modifying them, for a political task is a goal, war is only a means, and you can never think of a means without goals.
      The author did not say anything new in this opus, he only tried to fit the thoughts of the great German to his desires.
      1. Knell wardenheart
        Knell wardenheart 6 May 2021 12: 05
        +3
        Clausewitz worked in a slightly different era. Nationalism was still embryonic and not as obvious as a phenomenon, people were much more tolerant of violence and suppression, but at the same time they were much less aroused by propaganda that was still imperfect in its methods and coverage.
        The means of destruction in the Clausewitz era were much more primitive; to use them, one involuntarily had to meet the enemy at distances that provided much more equal conditions than now.
        The means of production were also more primitive - which often made it possible to deploy production quickly and "on the knee" - as to how it is happening now and what scale and pain it costs.

        Thus, the war of the Clausewitz era could well have passed according to the Napoleonic scenario - large-scale conquests of states and the seizure of their economies and demography - with much less destruction, opposition from the population, with much greater tolerance on the part of the captured (when compared with the partisans of the 20th century). In fact, this made it possible to extend the relatively successful model by force to the outside - with less complex losses and without the threat of disorganization, comparable to anything close to modern ones.

        Everything was much easier than it is now.
        1. Dart2027
          Dart2027 6 May 2021 15: 07
          -1
          Quote: Knell Wardenheart
          Clausewitz worked in a slightly different era.

          From the fact that missiles were added to the guns, the essence did not change.
    2. Anzhey V.
      6 May 2021 12: 23
      -4
      For all this I will tell you this, Anzhej V. Write more. You're doing well.


      Thanks a lot, Knell! It's nice to see like-minded people who understand what they read)
    3. Serg65
      Serg65 6 May 2021 14: 53
      +2
      Quote: Knell Wardenheart
      the use of the Armed Forces to "resolve questions" in Afghanistan did have very sad consequences.

      What exactly are the consequences?
      Quote: Knell Wardenheart
      a strong fleet was one of the factors that our "partners" behaved much less arrogantly off our shores

      Did the USSR have a strong fleet? The USSR began to build a strong fleet only by the end of the 80s, and this did not have harmful consequences and the country's economy.
      Quote: Knell Wardenheart
      we, alas, cannot adopt this strategy. And our opponents are more dangerous and capable.

      So what do we do?
      1. Knell wardenheart
        Knell wardenheart 6 May 2021 17: 27
        +3
        What exactly are the consequences?

        The invested funds, the lost lives, the "Afghan syndrome" and the associated decay in the army, in the end, all this turned out to be in vain and we did not receive a loyal and stable Afghanistan - having received, among other things, a bunch of sanctions and the undermining of society.

        Did the USSR have a strong fleet? The USSR began to build a strong fleet only by the end of the 80s and this did not have harmful consequences and the country's economy.

        Considering that only part of the remains of the Soviet fleet at the moment is a solid part of the Russian fleet - I believe that the fleet in the USSR was quite strong.
        By the way - the peak of XB just fell on these same 80s.

        So what do we do?

        For starters, stop trying to play empire on the shaky foundation we currently have. We need to pursue a more intelligible cultural policy in the post-Soviet space, to do it more soberly and competently, and not to sink to the level of the dumbest student in the class. Our external activities should focus on the CIS and within the SCO / BRICS - here we should expand trade and technological partnerships and diversification, promote the careful expansion and growth of the profitability of these initiatives. In relations with the EU, we should show diplomatic pressure and patience, use the existing platforms in the EU and the UN to organize round tables, communicate with journalists and allay fears of European trade and economic partners and the entire EU.
        With that part of the Western countries that do not want to listen to us and build mutually beneficial projects, preferring the pressure of sanctions, diplomatic and economic relations should be minimized as they are not useful for the Russian Federation. At the same time, it should be understood that the "de facto" EU is our irreplaceable trade symbiotic partner - so we should skillfully combine diplomacy working for the EU as a whole, for key partners within the EU, in particular, the EU states that do not border with us, which have the potential to increase trade and changes in the attitude of the elites to interacting with us, finally, quite effective restrictions that we will apply in relation to a group of EU countries with which good relations are not expected.
        Since the EU is a group of very different countries, it is worth considering interaction with this structure as interaction within democratic institutions - having gained overwhelming popularity, we solve the issue regardless of the attitude of the minority.
        We should deepen our relations with Iran, but we need to do it delicately, as much as possible helping to reduce passions in their relationship with Israel. This is probably our most important foreign policy action, but I see the price of the issue as high - Iran in a more civilized form would be an excellent prize in terms of partnership. As an alternative to diplomacy - blunt deepening of trade, technological, educational and energy partnerships - that is, most areas not related to the military.
        With the PRC, we should expand non-resource cooperation, while I would reduce military cooperation, because it is extremely important that in a promising world war, we try to remain at least temporarily "neutral".
        In general, the topic is quite deep, more of this article of text would have come out if expanded ..
        1. Serg65
          Serg65 7 May 2021 12: 11
          +2
          Quote: Knell Wardenheart
          The invested funds, the lost lives, the "Afghan syndrome" and the associated decay in the army, in the end, all this turned out to be in vain and we did not receive a loyal and stable Afghanistan - having received, among other things, a bunch of sanctions and the undermining of society.

          Of all the above, you can only attribute to the consequences decadence in the army, we did not get a loyal and stable Afghanistan, having received, among other things, a bunch of sanctions, the undermining of society
          The decadent phenomenon in the army began after the defeat of the Soviet generals by Gorbachev! The rout was linked to a well-planned provocation by Rust!
          Disloyal and UNstable Afghanistan is the new thinking of the main communist Gorbachev! The Secretary General has put a bold cross on all the work of the army, the GRU and the KGB, aimed at bringing stability and loyalty!
          We began to receive sanctions from the beginning of the 20th century ... there would be no Afghanistan, there would be a different Stan ... all the same, there would have been sanctions ... Reagan would have found the reason!
          The shaking of society began on May 7, 1985, when Ligachev and Gorbachev decided that there was no one smarter than them in the world!
          Was there a reason for this in Afghanistan?
          Although my opinion ... the Americans divorced us with Afghanistan, and Andropov and Ustinov played along with them in this.
          Quote: Knell Wardenheart
          For a start

          Putin is not trying to make an empire out of the Russian Federation.
          In the post-Soviet space, the train has already left, the departure from the platform was in 1992! Therefore, relations in these regions must be rebuilt, and in order to rebuild, specialists in these countries are needed! The Orthodox Church is doing more or less intelligible work here ... yes, yes!
          Quote: Knell Wardenheart
          Our external activities should focus on the CIS and within the SCO / BRICS - here we should expand trade and technological partnerships and diversification, promote the careful expansion and growth of the profitability of these initiatives

          The United States, Turkey and China have been playing on this field for 30 years already, in order to move them, I repeat once again, we need specialists in these countries. The main task is to reverse the influence of the aforementioned countries!
          Quote: Knell Wardenheart
          In relations with the EU

          The EU's relationship with us depends entirely on the mood of the United States!
          Quote: Knell Wardenheart
          it is extremely important that in a promising world war, we try to remain at least temporarily "neutral".

          Let there be no slaughter! There will only be a hybrid war!
          So what do we do?

          Personally, my opinion ..
          First! To minimize foreign influence on Russian society, without this, other actions will be useless!
          Second! Domestic policy should be based on the expansion of state capitalism, i.e. on increasing the state share in the economy. The maximum reduction in bureaucracy in relation to the common population. Promotion and material support of fertility. Tightening measures to violate the rules of labor laws. State dating of lending to small businesses, especially in areas beyond the Urals. Raising salaries for teachers and medical workers, in the long term, make these professions elite in terms of their acquisition. And ... the reduction of the bureaucratic apparatus with a simultaneous increase in salary and increased responsibility for the work performed, and within the framework of the Criminal Code!
          This is a small part of my wishes to the president and the government ...
          1. Knell wardenheart
            Knell wardenheart 7 May 2021 13: 03
            +2
            The EU's relationship with us depends entirely on the mood of the United States!

            We are very fond of the media to trump these clichés, but you should think about whether this is so. Europe is a key consumer of resources for us, with a positive balance in trade relations for us. All these gas projects are progressing, albeit with a creak.
            It would be as beautiful as you say - long ago they would have stretched a pipe along the bottom of the Mediterranean and spud Libya and / or would have extended the branch to African countries.
            But no, Europe knows how to count money and Europe has its own will to make it.

            Putin is not trying to make an empire out of the Russian Federation.

            What then is Putin trying to do from the Russian Federation?

            Let there be no slaughter! There will only be a hybrid war!

            In the future, it will be. But not soon. Hybridization implies a more or less wide "gray zone", but at the moment the number of players at the table and with cards is gradually increasing, this will lead to a decrease in the gray zone by increasing the control of individual players over its parts.
            At a certain moment (I repeat, not soon), the preconditions for a bloc war will develop in order to form a unified architecture of the world or a large region (such as Eurasia-Africa)

            To minimize foreign influence on Russian society, without this, other actions will be useless!

            How ? We eat Western food, watch movies, listen to music, use Western technology and the Internet. People travel abroad, contact their relatives there, work there, study.
            Until we have created a model that is better and more well-fed and beautiful than the Western model, the Western model will be perceived as a beacon for a respectable part of society, no matter how it gets hurt by RosKomNadzor or some other "supervision".

            Domestic policy should be based on the expansion of state capitalism, i.e. on increasing the state share in the economy

            There is nowhere wider - where do not stick in our monopolies everywhere, merged with the state. Such merging gives them many rights - including the right to eat any nascent competition or simply contiguous profitable businesses that arise outside the monopolies but are forced to cooperate with them. The concatenation of monopolists and the state allows lobbying laws for monopolists - which is what happens, our laws and regulations have been formed for many years for the interests of big business and capital. "De Jure" the state should be profitable and it should have a lot of money, "de facto" a lot of money have people tied to these monopolies - and they spend this money on palaces, yachts, real estate, including abroad.
            Our system is overly centralized and as a result - unaccountability and uncontrollability at each such center-point, which negates all the productivity of such a scheme "in theory".

            State dating of small business lending, especially in areas beyond the Urals

            "de jure" we have this happening, "de facto" at the head of the bank with state participation there is always a person who will be "brought in" and who will "help" win the tender for these loans "who should". And these "who follow" will again be representatives of large monopolies, which often do not even need to deposit anything anywhere - they will simply agree to pass part of the funds in the region through this particular bank, and that's it. Thus, most of these loans will go to the wrong address.

            On the whole, you have correct thoughts, but within the framework of the existing system, as for me, modernization is impossible. Neither legally, nor economically, nor politically, nothing contributes to the construction of a real social state in our country, and we observe its gradual dismantling. Any system tends to its apogee - the apogee of this system is one continuous chain of monopolies personally tied to the people in power - and various petty rags that will swarm below like goblins, lubricating mechanisms, cleaning up garbage and giving rise to new goblins to contain this construct. Like the pieces on a chessboard, each piece one step lower in the hierarchy has lower degrees of freedom, which allows even a not very capable person to control it better. For this purpose, there are measures of comprehensive restriction of rights, difficulties in activities under various sauces and propaganda. In developed countries, "goblins" are one of the actors in the generation of state income (through small and medium-sized businesses, business activity, investing, etc.) - but here they are just goblins whose task is to work, lubricate mechanisms, die when necessary and go to a demonstration in formation. We got it from the communists, who got it from tsarism, which got it from the Rurikovichs, in fact) With each turn, this scheme just develops and evolves somewhat, but its direction does not change.
      2. Vladimir1155
        Vladimir1155 6 May 2021 21: 42
        -1
        Quote: Serg65
        The USSR began to build a strong fleet only by the end of the 80s and this did not have harmful consequences and the country's economy.

        except for the collapse of the USSR, the catastrophe due to unreasonable investments in unnecessary aircraft carriers that served no more than 15 years basically ... and super battleships = cruisers, instead of frigates (skr) "If you want to ruin a small country, give it a cruiser ..." - Sir Winston Leonard Spencer Churchill
        1. Serg65
          Serg65 7 May 2021 12: 21
          +2
          Quote: vladimir1155
          except for

          Tie Vladimir, you are very far from this topic! hi
          1. Vladimir1155
            Vladimir1155 7 May 2021 19: 55
            -1
            Quote: Serg65
            tie

            it appears that we will write it down, on the merits of the issue you have nothing to argue with me
      3. Vladimir1155
        Vladimir1155 6 May 2021 21: 43
        0
        Quote: Serg65
        Quote: Knell Wardenheart
        the use of the Armed Forces to "resolve questions" in Afghanistan did have very sad consequences.

        What exactly are the consequences?

        cargo 200
        1. Serg65
          Serg65 7 May 2021 12: 23
          +2
          Quote: vladimir1155
          cargo 200

          Do you have any idea how much of this cargo came from units located on the territory of the USSR and did not take part in any hostilities ????
          1. Vladimir1155
            Vladimir1155 7 May 2021 19: 54
            0
            Quote: Serg65
            representation of how much of this cargo came from units located on the territory of the USSR and did not take part in any hostilities ????

            significantly less than from areas of hostilities
    4. bk0010
      bk0010 6 May 2021 16: 05
      0
      Quote: Knell Wardenheart
      Exactly so - now most of the meaningful countries are woven into a tight knot of long-term alliances and economies, the world has globalized very strongly and the "real politician" has flowed not into the hands of strong armies, but into the hands of strong economic unions.
      They said the same thing before the First World War, one to one. Economy, communications, the prohibitive high cost of dreadnoughts - war is impossible ... And then it began. And the price of a dreadnought was fired with shells in 3 days.
      1. 2 Level Advisor
        2 Level Advisor 6 May 2021 16: 22
        0
        let me be curious - who spoke? and the second question, was the economic and political structure of the world the same? one of the many points, was there a country similar to the United States, to which now and their dollar, almost the whole world is tied? and which bloc can now really oppose NATO, like the Entente? Such speeches may have been - although I did not read about it - but the world was - well, in general, it was arranged differently .. that for hundreds of years one thing is true - Thank God - who comes to us with a sword - from us on a stretcher .. the rest is changing - life. ...
        1. bk0010
          bk0010 6 May 2021 18: 57
          0
          Quote: Level 2 Advisor
          let me be curious - who spoke?
          Journalists and Philosophers.
          Quote: Level 2 Advisor
          one of the many points - was there a country similar to the United States, to which now and their dollar - almost the whole world is tied?
          Yes, England.
          Quote: Level 2 Advisor
          and which bloc can now really oppose NATO, like the Entente?
          By the standards of that time, NATO did not pull on the bloc, not all of its members were ready to join the slaughter (imagine that both the Entente and the Triple Alliance are made up of Italy alone).
          Quote: Level 2 Advisor
          Such speeches may have been - although I did not read about it - but the world was - well, in general, it was arranged differently
          In a fundamentally different way, yes, but then they also believed that a big war was impossible.
          1. 2 Level Advisor
            2 Level Advisor 6 May 2021 21: 13
            0
            1. Journalists and philosophers .. it's like - people say - it sounds like this to me, with the same authority of the source - excuse me ..
            2. England? the strongest and only superpower in 1900-1914? exactly? And then the whole world used the pound sterling for calculations and everyone in the world depended on it? And her army is in 1st place with a budget like the rest of the world put together? do not exaggerate (to put it mildly) .. Russia was considered at least not weaker (the ground forces definitely), and France and Germany were very close to the current picture of the world, this is not like the word - AT ALL .. Otherwise, then the Angles and without the Entente Would they have torn Germany like a hot water bottle - or do you doubt that now the United States will be able to roll the Germans out on its own?
            3. Yes, speaking about the fact that NATO is no longer the same, you confirm what I said .. there are now no military relics decisive for the fate of the world, neither the Entente, nor the Reich .. not at all .. and who has captured at least someone in the past 50 years old in the world by the army? For example, Germany, consider Greece economically annexed for loans, not a single soldier died .. You see, economic conquest is worse than a real war in some way, there are no enemies, but there is a seizure .. this is already understood in the world and the seizure is everywhere and everything goes in money (who can, of course) .. without shooting, peacefully .. and even if the flag of the country is above the office, but strangers rule ..
            4. Well, if it's like theoretical calculations about the possibility / impossibility of war .. maybe .. and even someday there will be .. probably ..
      2. Knell wardenheart
        Knell wardenheart 6 May 2021 17: 35
        +3
        There was a time when I on Yandex.Dzene wrote down several articles on the future alignments of the World War. And although "in theory" there is some kind of opposed dualism, as before the First World War, "in practice" one bloc is in a much better position and is much better mobilized in terms of interaction - than a hypothetical counter-directed bloc of countries, which are also dispersed. The unification that exists between them is also quite relative and cannot be compared with the NATO one. At the moment, both of these "blocs" are in fairly well-fed conditions, unlike the position of the "Triple Alliance" in relation to the Entente. So, although gradual advances indicate a POSSIBLE confrontation in the future, specifically now everything is hopelessly far from a pre-war situation like the First World War.
        Yes, there are separate foci. But rather like in interbellum.
  • exo
    exo 6 May 2021 12: 04
    +1
    At least two examples where the absence of a strong fleet hurt us a lot have already been cited in other articles on VO: the Spanish War and the Cuban Missile Crisis. Now, when carrying out the supply of troops in Syria, the problem of the auxiliary fleet has arisen. It is generally unnecessary to talk about the need for SSBNs.
    And aircraft carriers would occupy their niche. Another thing is the lack of the ability to build a balanced fleet, but we must strive for this, starting with the development of a clear doctrine of its application.
  • gregor6549
    gregor6549 6 May 2021 12: 05
    +3
    It has been a long time since I took Claudia into my hands :) I prefer to be a reader on VO, not a writer, although I "sinned" with this very Claudia a couple of times and gave birth to a couple of articles.
    But the discussion about the Russian Navy has developed quite seriously recently and is replete with different opinions, including those directly opposite.
    I'll make a reservation right away that I have a very indirect relationship to the fleet, although I had to participate several times at a very high level in the discussion of air defense / missile defense issues of individual ships and their formations.
    I will not touch upon issues of socio-economic, transport, etc. reviewed by the author in the article.
    I will only touch on one. The issue of missile defense, and the missile defense not of the Russian Navy, but of the missile defense system of the "partners". After all, I hope it's no secret to anyone that they have been building land, sea and air missile defense systems around Russia and in the immediate vicinity of its borders for a long time. And you can understand this "construction" because it is much easier to detect and intercept Russian missiles (ICBMs, cruise missiles, etc.) at the initial stage of their trajectory, when the torch from their engines has the maximum intensity and there is more time to make a decision to intercept such missiles, and the separation of missile warheads and traps is not yet took place. Therefore, the modernization of the naval air defense / missile defense systems of these same "partners" has long been in full swing. And if their ground-based missile defense systems, for example, in Romania, can be "cleaned up" relatively easily and on time, then sea-based missile defense systems simply cannot be dealt with.
    Hence the question. Will the Russian Navy be strong enough in its current state to cope with the sea-based missile defense systems of a very likely enemy?
    And if not enough, will it be possible, if necessary, to retaliate with the intended force?
    1. timokhin-aa
      timokhin-aa 6 May 2021 13: 23
      +1
      And if not enough, will it be possible, if necessary, to retaliate with the intended force?


      No, including thanks to the work of various Voskresensk
  • Soldatov V.
    Soldatov V. 6 May 2021 13: 44
    -2
    The reasoning of the author of the article is philistine-philistine or a Ukrainian from a farm who does not see further than his wattle fence. Everything should be, albeit in small quantities, but be. There is no strategic thinking at all. China has been thinking for millennia, but we wake up in the morning and think what we will do today. Instead of good vodka, we drink moonshine because it is expensive. How many submarines did Valuev have? Why was he removed? The tsar had the Baltic fleet in reserve, but what will we send to the Far East, for example? Even just pulling off the aircraft and the enemy fleet is already good. soldier
  • dranthqu
    dranthqu 6 May 2021 14: 19
    +2
    There are many controversial points in the article. For example, about the impossibility of posting Panamaxes by the Northern Sea Route, which has been carried out since 2013 according to reports (http://www.ibrae.ac.ru/docs/4(20)/104_110_ARKTICA_4_2015.pdf).

    I would like to add a link (https://ru.investinrussia.com/data/file/ey-freight-transportation-survey-2018.pdf) to a more detailed report for 2018 on cargo transportation, which additionally discusses the dynamics of transportation. Surprisingly, values ​​of 0.5-1.5% of freight are those for inland transport. Import / export seems to be generally accounted for separately - see page 11. At the same time, if you look at import / export, especially if you look at the volume of cargo, and not at ton-kilometers, it is about 10% of the total turnover and is growing at a rate of more than 10% in year. That is, you need to have some kind of fleet to protect trade.

    Further, it is imperative to have a fleet not just to protect the coast, but to protect the NSNF. And you can't get off with a dozen gunboats here - you have to build ships of the open sea PLO, and this is 2-3 ten warships with a displacement of at least 2000 tons, and preferably all 3500-4000. And this is not counting submarines, minesweepers, etc. Since building such ships for a single purpose is extremely impractical and ineffective - the Gorshkov fleet is an example of this - such ships will be multipurpose, that is, simultaneously intended for the tasks of anti-submarine defense, air defense and the fight against other ships. And this is the fleet.

    Finally, conducting a fairly active foreign policy sometimes presupposes the conduct of hostilities abroad. All special operations forces, militants and others are very good, but even the United States, France and Britain have to carry out support operations. At a glance: the closure of airspace over Libya, the wars in Iraq and Syria. One can argue over the approaches for a long time, but carrying out such operations by means of an aircraft carrier connection turns out to be comparable in cost (see https://topwar.ru/182463-o-strannostjah-v-postanovke-zadach-dlja-vmf-rf-i-nemnozhko- ob-avianoscah.html # comment-id-11448169), if not cheaper than the alternatives, but politically much easier and more convenient.

    In total, the construction of an aircraft carrier is just one of the options, and probably the cheapest, for solving certain economic, political and military goals. Purely protecting the shores (from whom?) And the protection of ships sailing along the Northern Sea Route (from whom? Polar bears?) Is not limited and is not described.
    1. Vladimir1155
      Vladimir1155 6 May 2021 21: 52
      -1
      Quote: dranthqu
      Further, it is imperative to have a fleet not just to protect the coast, but to protect the NSNF. And you can't get away with a dozen gunboats here - you will have to build ships of the open sea PLO, and this is 2-3 dozen warships with a displacement of at least 2000 tons, and preferably all 3500-4000. And this is not counting submarines, minesweepers, etc. Since building such ships for a single purpose is extremely inexpedient and ineffective - the Gorshkov's fleet is an example of this - such ships will be multipurpose, that is, simultaneously intended for the tasks of anti-aircraft defense, air defense and the fight against other ships. And this is the fleet.

      well, no one argues with this, a conversation with unnecessary aircraft carriers and battleship destroyers
      Quote: dranthqu
      In total, the construction of an aircraft carrier is just one of the options, and probably the cheapest, for solving certain economic, political and military goals. Purely protecting the shores (from whom?) And the protection of ships sailing along the Northern Sea Route (from whom? Polar bears?) Is not limited and is not described.

      It's good that you understand that aircraft carriers are not needed for defense, which is what you are writing about here ... but as for the cost ... well, is it really that five-six annual budgets of the Ministry of Defense spent on an unnecessary vessel is a small figure?
      1. dranthqu
        dranthqu 6 May 2021 23: 08
        0
        There are two points. First, let's say we agree that the ASW mission is in the Barents and Okhotsk Seas. Frigates, if there are at least 4-6 of them on duty in one direction (that is, with KOH 0,25 we get 16-24 required ships), they can provide some kind of PLO. However, they do not provide air defense for this area. Why air defense? And let's say during the threatened period, a P-8 Poseidon raid occurs under the cover of fighters that sow the same Barents Sea with acoustic buoys and / or mines (which are essentially acoustic buoys + torpedoes, and not spiked balls of the Second World War). The frigate, focused primarily on anti-aircraft defense, has limited air defense capabilities. Polyment-Redut simply does not provide theater air defense. Thus, for the stable protection of NSNF, you will either have to keep AWACS in the air on a permanent basis, which is very expensive and very unreliable, or still shell out for destroyers. At least 1 on duty - that is, 4 per fleet with a KOH 0,25. In total, for adequate defense of the borders, it will already be necessary to build ships to provide air defense of the theater of operations. Taking into account the required energy, these are at least destroyers. Thus, Russia already there are needs and tasks for each type of ships included in the AUG separately and together. And against this background, the addition of an aircraft carrier for expeditionary missions that do not require a continuous presence is precisely the construction of a ship and its provision with aviation. All escort ships will have to be built anyway.

        Now at a cost. In one of the recent articles or comments (I can find it if you want), I slipped an estimate of $ 28 billion over 10 years for the construction of an AUG (an aircraft carrier, 4 destroyers, 2 nuclear submarines, aircraft, ammunition for the KR). That's 2,8 billion a year. The aircraft carrier itself with airplanes is unlikely to be more expensive than $ 12-14 billion, that is, counting on 10 years, $ 1,4 billion a year will come out. This is less than 10% of the Navy's annual budget. At the same time, upon completion of such a program, it will be possible to remove, for example, a significant part of the expeditionary load from aviation and ground forces, which will provide considerable savings. Here's a calculation ... Do you have any other data?
        1. Vladimir1155
          Vladimir1155 6 May 2021 23: 21
          -1
          Quote: dranthqu
          Why air defense?

          it is clear that we assign air defense to coastal aviation and coastal air defense missile systems, especially since
          Quote: dranthqu
          Frigates, if there are at least 4-6 of them on duty in one direction (that is, with KOH 0,25 we get 16-24 required ships), they can provide some kind of PLO.

          I completely agree with this, although there is also PLO aviation ... but ... unfortunately, these numbers of frigates and corvettes are not expected ... there are now 6 of them on the Northern Fleet (including cruisers) and not a single one in Kamchatka ... although it is necessary to have 16 PLO FRs per nuclear submarine base at least, and we also need 20 minesweepers, minesweepers are needed even on the seas, that is, only 50 minimum are needed ... and this is not and is not expected ... therefore
          Quote: dranthqu
          The aircraft carrier itself with planes is unlikely to be more expensive than $ 12-14 billion.

          looks infinitely expensive and especially since it will actually be four times more costs, for example, the repair of Nakhimov and the construction of a new American AV, budgets are always exceeded many times
          1. dranthqu
            dranthqu 7 May 2021 01: 23
            0
            it is clear that we assign air defense to coastal aviation and coastal air defense missile systems

            Let's consider the scenario I described: let's say 6 groups, each of a Poseidon P-8, B-52 or B-2 and several carrier-based fighters, enter the Barents Sea region from the west and north. And it begins to "seed" with hydroacoustic buoys and mines.

            On average, all this will happen at a distance of 400-800 km from the nearest coast. All these groups will not climb to the shore - on the contrary, they will try to remain unnoticed, for example, following below the radio horizon. As a result, the effectiveness of coastal detection systems will be reduced (range to the target and its stealth). And even in case of detection, the reaction time of coastal aviation will be at least half an hour purely due to the flight time. The coastal air defense forces most likely will not have enough range. During this time, the enemy has already done his job - and at best it will be possible to engage in battle with the fleeing enemy who has already completed his task.

            Coastal aviation is good for coastal defense. Drown the AUG in the raid, or repel the landing. But as the main means of ensuring dominance in a certain area of ​​the sea, it is ill-suited.

            looks infinitely expensive and especially since it will actually be four times more costs, for example, the repair of Nakhimov and the construction of a new American AV, budgets are always exceeded many times

            I took the numbers based on actual, not planned, A / B costs of different countries. That is, these are numbers already multiplied by 4. In addition, this is an amount comparable both in size and in terms of spending, with the operation in Syria. If you have other assessments, it will be great to see and discuss them.
            1. Vladimir1155
              Vladimir1155 7 May 2021 19: 50
              0
              Quote: dranthqu
              As a result, the effectiveness of coastal detection equipment will be

              equal to the capabilities of 1 satellite reconnaissance, 2 capabilities of the A100 3 capabilities of the VORONEZH radar ... this is an order of magnitude greater than the capabilities of a deck helicopter
              Quote: dranthqu
              this is a sum comparable in size,
              with 10 percent of the budget of the Ministry of Defense .... that is, you propose to reduce the Army by 100000 people (in total there is a million l / s) along with weapons for them, for the sake of a dubious vessel with unclear goals?
              1. dranthqu
                dranthqu 7 May 2021 20: 49
                0
                Satellite reconnaissance, especially in the circumpolar regions, does not always work, rather it even works sometimes. This seems to have been discussed.

                About A100 - Do you offer a kind of "Chrome Dome" in miniature? Taking into account that the cost of the purchase of one such aircraft alone is 100-150 million dollars (https://russianplanes.net/reginfo/53924 gives the value of the contract for the refurbishment of the new Il-76MD-90A at 33 billion rubles), the construction price and maintaining a sufficient amount for constant duty in the air becomes comparable, if not more than 22350M. This does not ensure all-weather performance.

                Voronezh is good, but it is ... over the horizon. That is, at a distance of 400 kilometers, he does not see everything that is below 12 kilometers, and at a distance of 800 km - everything that is below 50 km. In addition, I did not find any references confirming that an early warning missile system can effectively operate in order to control airspace at distances over 300 km. I suspect you have such links. Could you bring them?

                with 10 percent of the budget of the Ministry of Defense .... that is, you propose to reduce the Army by 100000 people (in total there is a million l / s) along with weapons for them, for the sake of a dubious vessel with unclear goals?

                I repeat: with 10 percent of the budget of the Navy, not the Defense Ministry. Yes, my proposal is to "transfer" a significant part of the expeditionary forces in Khmeimim (air defense, air group and its maintenance) to the ship, and significantly reduce the other part (A / B guards). This will allow both to send the troupe on tour to other theaters, and to reduce the risk of terrorist attacks.
                1. Vladimir1155
                  Vladimir1155 7 May 2021 23: 08
                  0
                  Quote: dranthqu
                  my proposal is to "transfer" a significant part of the expeditionary forces in Khmeimim (air defense, air group and its maintenance) to the ship, and the other part (A / B guards) to be significantly reduced.

                  history shows that twice Russian battleships were killed because of ter attacks right in the port and once because of the attack of aircraft in the port and once because of the act at sea ... it is very unreliable and expensive to "transfer guards to battleships" ...
                  1. dranthqu
                    dranthqu 8 May 2021 01: 06
                    0
                    History shows the particular importance of the correct organization of anti-aircraft, anti-submarine and anti-sabotage defense, as well as the fight for survivability. These two attacks did not interfere with the Soviet fleet. Just as Pearl Harbor did not prevent the Americans from transferring guards to cruisers (not battleships), and the attack on USS Coke did not prevent the aircraft carrier from passing through the Suez Canal and, if necessary, keeping it in the Persian Gulf.
                    1. Vladimir1155
                      Vladimir1155 8 May 2021 09: 14
                      0
                      Quote: dranthqu
                      the importance of the correct organization of anti-aircraft, anti-submarine and anti-sabotage defense, as well as the fight for survivability. These two attacks did not interfere with the Soviet fleet.

                      the correct organization should rely on powerful materiel, no matter how much the air defense of the surface ship, its visibility will play a cruel joke with it neither in the bushes nor in the forest, you cannot hide it under water ... and the fight for survivability is already the last stage, this is about artillery, an anti-aircraft missile strike is something more and the fight for survivability turns into "who can save yourself" to the Soviet fleet, aircraft attacks cost the sinking of a battleship right at the pier in Kronstadt, and battleships were not sunk at sea for a simple reason, battleships did not go out to sea for almost the entire war ... Well, why do we need them then?
  • YOU
    YOU 6 May 2021 14: 51
    +2
    Yes, the article is paradoxical. How to ensure the availability of submarine missile carriers without the fleet, one of the main components of the strategic nuclear forces. And this is also a whole task, with the provision of both air cover and anti-submarine. And for this we need bases. And the bases need to be supplied and covered, again the fleet. And the message that there is nothing on the NSR is not necessary. So nothing is needed at all. And nothing will happen. The NSR is primarily the development of these territories. There, delivery is possible only along the NSR. The NSR will function. There will be new cities and industries. The same Norilsk and around depend on the NSR. This means that ports will also be built, and if someone wants to do there transshipment for container ships, then please. And they will go, and cargo is carried not only by container ships, bananas of course along the NSR in a container will not be lucky, so they will not be lucky in other areas either. And who will defend all this. And there you need a fleet and a very specific one, for example, American missile destroyers in such conditions are not very good. In general, a strange article.
  • Drugov
    Drugov 6 May 2021 16: 04
    0
    Excellent article with killer arguments. Once again, naval aviation, missile weapons, reconnaissance satellites, air defense modernization and finally an anaerobic installation for submarines are the priority tasks.
  • Earthshaker
    Earthshaker 6 May 2021 18: 49
    +1
    How tired I am of mediocre politicians, strategists and theorists.
    The admiral's quote surprised me.
    1. "Nuclear weapons" instead of nuclear.
    2. "ships of the anti-missile barrier"
    3. the overloaded AUG composition, and not a single supply ship or at least a tanker was mentioned. Apparently what country, such are the admirals.
    PMCs will be destroyed in an open clash with any organized army, tk. they do not have artillery and full-fledged aviation. Their destiny is cargo escorting, partisan or counter-partisanship. If the PMC will not support the same army with aviation.
    You can't fight a lot of karakurt in the sea even on your own shores, especially in fresh weather. And they will beat us (if they get together) from the sea, and always in fresh weather.
  • Petrol cutter
    Petrol cutter 6 May 2021 18: 52
    0
    In terms of aircraft carriers ....
    Can not understand . Why are we discussing aircraft carriers all the way, when everyone knows there is NO money for them!
    And not expected.
    I want to have a two-story cottage on the banks of Yalta. For instance. And drive a Bentley Continental car
    But, I understand that I have no money for it. And it won't.
    Having come to this understanding, I begin to improve the quality of life - in the already existing conditions.
    And by no means continue to dream of some cottages ... And other "Bentlyahs" ...
    1. timokhin-aa
      timokhin-aa 6 May 2021 20: 52
      +2
      There is money, you just need to redistribute it.
      Damn it, we even have an aircraft carrier!
      Who would have repaired it ...
      1. 2 Level Advisor
        2 Level Advisor 6 May 2021 21: 20
        -1
        Well, yes, there is money in the country for a cottage and a Bentley - to Vitaly - only who will give it to him .. rather so right wink
        1. timokhin-aa
          timokhin-aa 7 May 2021 02: 00
          0
          Yes, they are in the budgets of the Ministry of Defense and the Ministry of Industry and Trade, do not be silly.
      2. Vladimir1155
        Vladimir1155 6 May 2021 21: 56
        -1
        Quote: timokhin-aa
        There is money, you just need to redistribute it.
        Damn it, we even have an aircraft carrier!
        Who would have repaired it ...

        How is it simple with you, or maybe it's better to lower the retirement age and raise the salaries of military personnel, teachers, doctors? Will you give money to repair Kuzi personally?
        1. timokhin-aa
          timokhin-aa 7 May 2021 01: 59
          0
          Distribute to retirees? This is an old training manual, carry another one.
    2. Vladimir1155
      Vladimir1155 6 May 2021 22: 02
      0
      Quote: Benzorez
      I want to have a two-story cottage on the banks of Yalta. For instance. And drive a Bentley Continental car

      By the way, if I try to work hard on a two-story in Yalta and Bentley, but if I sell everything and throw money down the drain (I squander it), who will then help my children and what will I leave them as a legacy in this case? a rusty trough and a house where there is no work .. I prefer a real estate in St. Petersburg and cars that you can drive, and not only be proud of them ... I also think about the fleet, we need nuclear submarines, submarines, coastal aircraft, minesweepers, PLO frigates, but battleship destroyers and aircraft carriers are not needed
    3. Soldatov V.
      Soldatov V. 7 May 2021 06: 47
      -1
      There is a garbage dump in the country. Why is it not a colonel who is not less than five to ten billion rubles upon arrest, but how much money does large and medium-sized officials have? From somewhere they peck. The logistics of allocating and distributing money is arranged so that everyone is smeared or bit off the cake. soldier
  • xomaNN
    xomaNN 6 May 2021 19: 14
    0
    I, as a reserve officer of the Navy - of course, I disagree with the author bully And so you cannot say that the fleet is pulling resources from other types of the RF Armed Forces.
  • Eug
    Eug 6 May 2021 19: 22
    0
    What is needed is not oppositions of opposites, but their combinations and balances. Then there will be the desired result in the form of the most protected interests. And what they (interests) are - this is a real headache ...
  • Falcon5555
    Falcon5555 6 May 2021 19: 55
    +1
    but most importantly, container ships with a capacity of more than 4500 TEU cannot pass along the Northern Sea Route
    And why not?
    1. Anzhey V.
      6 May 2021 22: 23
      -2
      The depth of the straits does not allow. Sannikov, for example, has a total of 13 meters. And he is not the only one there.

      For comparison - in the Suez Canal 24.

      For example, the pioneer of the NSR "Venta Maersk" had a capacity of 3600 TEU - this figure is significantly less than the capacity of most ships passing through the Suez Canal every day.

      In addition, a large container ship requires not one icebreaker, but two. You understand that this is also an additional cost.

      The NSR can turn out to be a very useful artery for the country, but it is still quite difficult and this must be taken into account.
      1. Artyom Karagodin
        Artyom Karagodin 6 May 2021 23: 16
        0
        Here I completely agree. It will always be cheaper to sail ships on southern routes. Even if we assume that icebreaker assistance is not needed for year-round navigation on the NSR (in 50-100 years, maybe it will be so if the warming continues), then in any case ships of a different class are needed than for Suez, warm clothes are needed , special feeding, other service, etc. So even if you omit the icebreaker assistance, it will come out in any case more expensive than in the south.

        And now we are building the first "Leader", which is capable of navigating ships all year round, therefore breaking through the ice in the east of the Arctic Ocean (in winter it is 4 m there), but at a speed of 2 knots !!! Let them say on the "Zvezda" that it is faster to get to Europe via the NSR laughing .