Military Review

About possible conflicts and threats from the sea. What enemy will the Russian Navy face?

202

Source: gunsfriend.ru


In a previous article "On the role of the Russian Navy in the prevention of nuclear war" I came to the following conclusion. The main task of the naval fleet In order to prevent a counterforce nuclear strike, Russia will timely detect the increased activity of multipurpose nuclear submarines of the United States and its allies in our near sea zone, areas of combat services of strategic missile submarine cruisers (SSBNs) and on the approaches to them.

Solving this problem will allow us to systematically thwart attempts to detect and escort our SSBNs and promptly put the Russian Strategic Missile Forces (Strategic Missile Forces) on high alert. Obviously, under such conditions, the counterforce strike cannot be successful, which means it will not be delivered.

And it is also obvious that we do not need an ocean-going fleet to solve this problem. This requires minesweepers, PLO corvettes, possibly small anti-submarine ships, nuclear-powered torpedo submarines of medium (or even small) displacement (PLAT), focused primarily on anti-submarine warfare, patrol aircraft and PLO helicopters, as well as a system for lighting the underwater environment ( stationary hydrophones, specialized reconnaissance ships, etc.).

In fact, it is the forces listed above, together with the SSBNs themselves, that are the basis, the backbone of the fleet. For the simple reason that preventing an unprovoked large-scale nuclear missile attack on our country is the main and most important task of the Russian Navy. Of course, there is no point in building aircraft carriers, UDCs, ocean destroyers, large nuclear submarines - carriers of cruise missiles, and so on, if at the same time the tasks of equipping the fleet with corvettes, minesweepers, patrol aircraft and the rest of the above means of identifying and "arresting" underwater threats. It is even more senseless to build an ocean-going fleet instead of such means.

But preventing a counterforce strike is not the only task of the Russian Navy. For the simple reason that a big war can break out in a different scenario.

A little about politics


The world is periodically shaken by political and military crises, when the armed forces of the nuclear powers are brought to increased combat readiness. The Americans announced DEFCON 3 (DEFCON 5 - peacetime readiness, DEFCON 1 - maximum readiness for a full-scale nuclear conflict) during the Cuban missile crisis, the Yom Kippur War and after the September 11, 2001 attacks. DEFCON 2 was announced for Strategic Air Command during the Cuban Missile Crisis and for all military forces during Desert Storm.

But DEFCON 1, the highest form of readiness, was announced only once - during the "Experienced Archer" exercise. Everything would be fine, but these exercises took place exactly at the moment of extreme cooling in relations between the USSR and the United States. It happened after R. Reagan called the USSR an "evil empire", when the first Pershing-2s were on alert in Europe, and we, through a tragic misunderstanding, shot down a South Korean Boeing 747. These exercises were planned for November, and were being prepared to them so thoroughly that the leadership of the USSR was seriously afraid that these were not exercises, but preparations for an attack.

And it had to happen that it was on the eve of these exercises that on September 26, 1983, the newest space-based early warning system "Oko" issued messages about an American missile attack ...

Fortunately, thanks to the competent reaction of people on the ground, we sorted it out in time, did not disturb anyone and did not inflict a counter-counter. But this was far from the first time in stories.

I would not want to be in the place of Zbigniew Brzezinski, when he was woken up in the middle of the night by a call - the USSR launched 250 missiles at the USA! It is clear that in such news I somehow do not want to believe, so Brzezinski asked for confirmation. Alas, according to updated data, 2 Soviet missiles flew to North America ... To Brzezinski's credit, he had enough nerves to wait a while, and not immediately ask the president for permission to retaliate. He didn't even wake his wife. If there is no blow, then there is no need to fuss, and if the USSR nevertheless attacked, then in less than half an hour both he and his wife will still be dead. Fortunately, the Americans also figured it out in time, and the matter did not come to Armageddon.

I consider Zbigniew Brzezinski to be an enemy of the Russian people, but he cannot be denied his intellect and willpower. Alas, since then the quality of the administration of American presidents, how to put it politically more correctly, has not been getting better. Imagine for a second what could have happened if someone with the mentality and outlook of D. Psaki were in the place of Brzezinski!

At the same time, the world constantly smolders somewhere, and where military conflicts flare up. We are bombing the Syrian "barmaley", the Americans are portraying something there in Syria and Afghanistan, the military of the Russian Federation and NATO countries regularly look at each other through the crosshairs. And sometimes they press the trigger. So, in 2015, the Turks shot down our Su-24M, and in 2017 we inadvertently dropped something heavy on their servicemen, which killed three Turkish soldiers and injured 11 more. Due to the provocative actions of the Israelis, our Il-20 was shot down.

About possible conflicts and threats from the sea. What enemy will the Russian Navy face?
Padded Su-24M. Photo: Russian Ministry of Defense

Today, all these clashes do not develop into something more. But in general, the overall political situation, in my opinion, is developing from bad to worse:

1.With the collapse of the USSR and the OVD bloc, world peace somehow went wrong. NATO expanded eastward, the United States and Europe in their foreign policy did not take our interests into account at all, and when we did not agree with this, sanctions began, the demonization of the Russian Federation in the world media, and our relationship with the United States quickly slipped into the Cold War era. That is, after a short period of detente (when the Russian Federation practically abandoned its independent foreign policy), the usual tension in relations returned.

2. The quality of governance of the militarily strongest powers is not getting better. Yes, dear reader has the right to reproach me with propaganda that "before the grass was greener and the sky was bluer", but still, in my personal opinion, Biden and Trump do not look like worthy successors of Ronald Reagan, although he did not shine against the background of those who preceded him. presidents. B. Johnson does not look at all against the background of M. Thatcher, Macron against the background of Mitterrand, etc. etc. Yes, and our situation is not in the best way.

3. Abroad, the Russian Federation is no longer perceived as a superpower. As a result, some countries consider it possible to achieve their geopolitical goals at our expense. Not that this was not the case under the USSR (yes, here at least remember the same Damansky), but still ... Turkey in the days of the USSR could only dream of "Great Turan", but now - with might and main is pursuing an appropriate policy, risking clashes with our Armed Forces in Syria and supporting Azerbaijan. Japan is tightening its rhetoric on the Kuril Islands. Georgia, which cannot be found on the globe without a magnifying glass, went on to kill our peacekeepers during the attack on Tskhinvali.


In other words, during the times of the USSR, the world repeatedly froze on the verge of a nuclear war, but thanks to the rationality and professionalism of the responsible persons, it still did not happen. Today, tensions between countries are perhaps even greater, and the quality of crisis management has declined. Such a situation is fraught with the possibility of a major non-nuclear and even nuclear conflict, for which our armed forces must be prepared.

On the possibility of a major non-nuclear conflict


We talk a lot about nuclear deterrence, but you need to understand that its capabilities are very, very limited. For example, in the period 1945-1949, the United States possessed a nuclear weapons, but the USSR did not, but this did not at all prevent the unprecedented expansion of the USSR's influence. The United States did not dare to use nuclear weapons in either the Korean or Vietnamese conflicts; we did not use them either during the Soviet-Chinese crisis or in Afghanistan. The French did not use nuclear weapons in Algeria, the British in the conflict with Argentina.

Why?

You need to understand that nuclear weapons are taboo. In 1961, the UN General Assembly adopted a resolution banning the use of nuclear weapons, which states:

"Any state using nuclear or thermonuclear weapons should be considered as violating the Charter of the United Nations, acting contrary to the laws of humanity and committing a crime against humanity and civilization."

Therefore, those who are ready to use nuclear weapons in any local conflict should understand one very simple thing. The use of even tactical nuclear weapons is a direct path to the very bench where Goering and Ribbentrop once sat.

Of course, you can put the question bluntly: "Who will put us there, with our nuclear arsenal?"

They will be imprisoned, at least in absentia: the use of nuclear weapons in a local conflict will make the Russian Federation a rogue state, by analogy with North Korea. Only now the North Koreans were building their "iron curtain" from the inside, and for us they will build it outside. Yes, such that today's sanctions seem like heavenly manna.

Consider the issue of nuclear deterrence in relation to Japan.

Why don't we give the Japanese the Kuril Islands, which they are so worried about?

There are many reasons for this. Having given Habomai, Iturup, Kunashir and Shikotan, we will suffer both economic and geopolitical damage, since many natural resources are located around them, and the Japanese and US navies will receive open gates to the Sea of ​​Okhotsk. In addition, such a decision is a revision of the results of the Second World War: such a process is easy to start, but impossible to finish, because the transfer of these islands would set a very bad precedent.

In other words, handing over the islands they so desired to the Japanese, we will incur significant economic, military and reputational losses. But here's the thing: if suddenly the Japanese decide to return these islands by force of conventional (conventional) weapons, and we cannot prevent them from doing so and will be forced to use tactical nuclear weapons, then our economic and reputational costs will be significantly higher than if we accept defeat and we will give up the indicated islands. Therefore, I cannot rule out a situation in which the Russian leadership would prefer to accept the loss of the Kuril Islands, but not to use nuclear weapons.

The Japanese understand all this very well, while for them the Kuril Islands is a very painful issue. Therefore, if at some point the government of the Land of the Rising Sun is confident that we will not be able to defend the Kuril Islands with conventional weapons, it can really decide to invade. And it attacks in the expectation that the Russian Federation, even losing, will not dare to "print" its nuclear arsenals.


And what should the leadership of the Russian Federation do if the Japanese attack and we lose the “battle for the Kuriles” using conventional weapons?

To accept the loss, or to use TNW?

Both options doom the Russian Federation to a world that will be worse than the pre-war one, that is, we will lose in any case. We will lose despite our entire nuclear arsenal. Yes, by using nuclear weapons in such a situation, we can make it so that for the Japanese things will end much worse than for us. But it won't make it easier for us.

"Why then do we need strategic nuclear forces (SNF) if they do not protect from anything?"

- an indignant reader may ask a question.

The answer is simple. Nuclear weapons are super-powerful, but they really protect us well only from super-global threats. A potential aggressor knows: if suddenly the Russian Federation is subjected to a massive nuclear attack or an invasion with the use of conventional weapons, which we cannot resist and which will be aimed at destroying our state, we will respond. Let us answer in such a way that the world will shudder in mortal terror. But only when the existence of the Russian Federation as a sovereign state is at stake. Or, to put it simply, when we have nothing to lose. Our geopolitical opponents know about this and therefore will not risk driving us into such a situation.

This is the main nuance of nuclear deterrence. It provides reliable protection only against total aggression. But if an aggressor country does not claim to destroy a nuclear power, but seeks to resolve some local issue in its favor, it may well attack, not believing that nuclear weapons will be used "for such an insignificant reason." There have already been precedents - both Damansky and Falklands. Theoretically, such a non-nuclear war "on a secondary matter" is possible even between the United States and the Russian Federation.

In order to protect oneself from "local aggression", powerful non-nuclear general-purpose forces are needed.

Let's go back to the example of the Kuril Islands.

If our Aerospace Forces and the Navy in the Far East are weak, then the Japanese may at some point convince themselves that we will not risk using nuclear weapons - and will attack. But if our general-purpose forces are powerful enough to repel aggression without nuclear weapons, an attempt to resolve the issue by force will lose all meaning for the Japanese.

On scenarios of "accidental" nuclear war


Unfortunately, today and in the future there will be a nonzero probability that the Russian Federation will be drawn into a nuclear conflict. I assume 3 quite realistic scenarios for its beginning:

1. The USA and the Russian Federation are facing a severe political crisis. Both sides begin to actively "rattle weapons", showing each other the seriousness of their intentions, and then some kind of failure occurs in the warning systems of a nuclear attack. It will not be possible to quickly figure out its causes, and - welcome to the post-apocalypse.

2. A military clash with one of the NATO powers, which will occur as a result of an incident on the territory of third countries. Let's say they shoot down our next plane. In response, the incumbent president will not confine himself to "tomato" sanctions, but will order a local operation of retaliation (or enforcement of peace), and all this will develop into a full-fledged war between the two countries. Other NATO countries, faithful to their commitments, will intervene, we, not having enough resources for such a war, will respond with tactical nuclear weapons, they will retaliate against us with a limited nuclear strike with strategic weapons, and everything will end with Armageddon.

3. The Russian Federation will undergo a non-nuclear attack (yes, those are the Kuriles), but as a result of the escalation, the conventional war will develop into a full-scale nuclear missile conflict. Moreover, the reason for the escalation will not necessarily be the use of tactical nuclear weapons: for example, one of the parties will accidentally (or not entirely accidentally) destroy the enemy's nuclear power plant and ...

In general, many paths lead to Armageddon in addition to the counterforce strike. And those that we are considering now have two things in common:

1) initially no one wants a total nuclear war;

2) the beginning of full-scale hostilities will be preceded by a certain period of tension (or even hostilities without the use of nuclear weapons), which can be measured in days, weeks and even months, during which the parties will have the opportunity to deploy a significant part of their armed forces.

In such conflicts, the Russian Navy must be ready to fulfill the third (but not in importance) task facing it: "repelling aggression from sea and ocean directions."

What do you need?

First of all - to understand the approximate composition and size of the enemy forces that will threaten us, and the tasks that the enemy will solve.

What forces can threaten us?


Let's consider the most dangerous conflict possible: in it the United States will become our main adversary.

The Americans have the most powerful fleet in the world, the general purpose forces of which meet the multipower standard, that is, stronger than all other navies in the world combined.

However, even if the period of tension extends over several months, the US Navy will certainly not be able to deploy its full strength. Some of their ships will undergo major or current repairs, the other part will not have time to restore their combat effectiveness after repair, and the part that is in an unsatisfactory technical condition will await repairs. Therefore, of course, we should not expect the deployment of all 11 US aircraft carriers off our coast in any case.


As a matter of fact, the inability to deploy the available forces in full is by no means the prerogative of either the fleet as a branch of the armed forces or the United States as a power. So, for example, to date, out of seven large anti-submarine ships in the Northern and Pacific fleets of the Russian Navy, two are under repair, another, which has recently completed its modernization, probably has not yet managed to restore combat readiness after a long break.

In other branches of the armed forces, everything is the same. At any given time, the same US Air Force has only a fraction of its aircraft operational: usually 55–75% of combat vehicles are in this state, and the rest cannot be put into operation "at the snap of a finger." And the same is true for the air forces of other countries.

Analyzing the current composition of the US Navy, as well as the speed of deployment of their forces during Operation Desert Shield, it can be assumed that if the Americans shake up a little, pulling up the combat capability of the fleet closer to the level of the last century, then in a few months of a period of tension they may well deploy against our country about half of their strength.

In numbers, this will be 5-6 carrier strike groups (AUG) with various means of reinforcement and separate squadrons of submarines, not counting amphibious groups.

At the same time, a separate AUG will include an aircraft carrier, 1-2 missile cruisers, from 3 to 6 ships of the destroyer and frigate classes, as well as 1-3 nuclear submarines. That is, from 4 to 8 escort ships will be "attached" to the aircraft carrier, and if there are 4–5, then at least two nuclear submarines should be expected, but if there are 7 or 8, then, rather, one.

If we assume that the Americans will not include promising frigates in the AUG, then the composition of the forces that will threaten us can be roughly estimated in:

- 6 aircraft carriers (as part of the AUG);
- 40–45 ships of the "missile cruiser" and "destroyer" class, of which up to 36 will be part of the AUG;
- 25-30 multipurpose nuclear submarines, of which 10-12 will be part of the AUG.

In addition, in the future, the Americans will be able to deploy a number of frigates and LSCs, which they plan to build, and other warships, as well as the Navy of their allies. Of course, the Americans will also deploy significant amphibious forces, but I will not be engaged in forecasting their number - they will not be involved in sea battles.

As for the deployment, it should be expected that the Americans will form three aircraft carrier strike forces (ACS), 2 AUG in each, one ACS for the Far East, the Norwegian and Mediterranean Seas. Moreover, if, say, it is possible to form only 5 AUG, then AUG will be deployed in the Mediterranean Sea, and not AUS. However, this, of course, will depend on the reasons that caused the political crisis and the period of tension.

In the future, in order not to multiply entities beyond what is necessary, I will consider a possible confrontation only in our north. Taking into account all of the above, the combined forces of the US, Norwegian and British navies should be considered as opponents of our Red Banner Northern Fleet (KSF).

It can be expected that during the threatened period in the Norwegian Sea 2 American and 1 British AUG will be deployed against us (the latter, presumably, will include an aircraft carrier, 3-4 Daring-class destroyers, 2-3 frigates and one nuclear submarine) , as well as the Norwegian Navy, consisting of 6-7 frigates and corvettes and 4-5 non-nuclear submarines. In addition, we can expect deployment in the Barents Sea and on the routes of our SSBNs up to 7-9 American and 2-3 British multipurpose nuclear submarines. It is also possible to send one boat of the "Ohio" type, converted into a carrier of cruise missiles.


At the same time, it should be expected that not only multipurpose submarines will be concentrated in the Norwegian Sea. If the Americans consider the crisis serious enough, then a pair of Ohio-class SSBNs should be expected to be deployed in the Norwegian Sea, and the British may add one or two SSBNs to them. In this case, the general-purpose forces of the United States and NATO in the theater will, in addition to the projection of force, also perform the role of covering the deployment of the US and NATO naval strategic nuclear forces.

Accordingly, the total number of ships opposing our KSF can be estimated as:

- 3 aircraft carriers (2 - USA and 1 - England);
- 15-16 ships of the "missile cruiser" and "destroyer" classes (12 - USA and 3-4 - England);
- 8-15 ships of the frigate, corvette, LCS classes;
- 3 SSBNs (2 - USA);
- 1 converted into a carrier of cruise missiles "Ohio";
- 12-17 multipurpose nuclear submarines (9-13 - USA, 3-4 - England);
- 4-5 non-nuclear submarines (Norway).

The bulk of these ships will be deployed in the Norwegian Sea, up to 9–12 nuclear-powered multipurpose and 2–4 non-nuclear submarines in the Barents Sea.

As for aviation, then here the arithmetic is as follows. American aircraft carriers normally carry:

- 48 fighter-attack aircraft "Hornet" F / A-18 and "Super-Hornet" F / A-18E / F;
- 4-8 aircraft electronic warfare and air defense breakthrough "Hornet" E / A-18 "Growler";
- 4–8 AWACS E2-S Hawaiian aircraft;
- 2 transport aircraft C-2 "Greyhound";
- 8-10 multipurpose helicopters MN-60NK Sea Hawk.

And in total - from 66 to 74 aircraft and helicopters. However, as you know, much more aircraft can be “piled” on an aircraft carrier. For example, "Theodore Roosevelt" fought in Iraq, having on board 84 aircraft, including 57 fighters and attack aircraft, 9 AWACS and EW aircraft, 8 PLO aircraft, 4 tankers and 6 helicopters. And this despite the fact that part of the air group was made up of F-14 Tomcat fighters - heavier and larger machines than today's Super Hornets.

Given the deployment plans that existed back in the days of the USSR, the following can be assumed. The American AUS will go to the shores of Norway, packed with planes "to the eyeballs", taking up to a hundred combat aircraft on board. There, some of the aircraft will be relocated to land airfields in Norway to be based on them. And there will fly at least a dozen modern US patrol aircraft, the same P-8A Poseidon, for operations in the waters of the Norwegian and Barents seas. The total number of naval aviation in the theater can be estimated as:

- 12 or more P-8A Poseidon (USA);
- 12-16 aircraft electronic warfare and air defense breakthrough "Hornet" E / A-18 "Growler" (USA);
- 12-16 AWACS E2-D "Hawkeye" aircraft (USA);
- 3-4 AWACS helicopters (England);
- 144 fighter-attack aircraft "Hornet" F / A-18 and "Super Hornet" F / A-18E / F, or F-35C (USA);
- 24 multifunctional fighters F-35B (England);
- 30–35 helicopters in the PLO or rescue version.


As for the amphibious forces, I will not calculate them, as mentioned earlier, but we should expect that they will be enough to provide tactical landings up to the Marine Corps Brigade, inclusive.

What else?

Of course, the navies of NATO countries are not going to fight in a vacuum, the Americans have long demonstrated the ability to conduct joint operations with the forces of the air force, ground forces and navy. But, again, in order not to multiply essences beyond what is necessary, we will make the assumption that the NATO Air Force in the theater will be busy with "land affairs", and our KSF will be opposed only by the NATO Navy.

On the tasks of the US Navy and NATO


In comparison with the era of the USSR, perhaps not much has changed. It should be expected that in the event of a conventional war, the US and NATO navies in the north will strive to achieve the following goals.

In the period immediately preceding the hostilities:

- search and escort SSBN KSF in the Barents Sea and adjacent areas of the Arctic;

- identification and tracking of surface and submarine forces of the KSF in the Norwegian Sea.

At the first stage of hostilities:

- the maximum weakening of our nuclear forces by destroying the SSBNs of the KSF by the MAPL and patrol aircraft;

- ensuring the combat stability of SSBNs by gaining complete domination in the Norwegian Sea by destroying all Russian surface, submarine and air forces, if such KSF forces are deployed in this sea;

- the destruction of KSF forces in naval bases, naval aviation at land airfields, as well as disruption of air defense, control and communications, etc. by striking high-precision weapons from the waters of the Norwegian and Barents Seas.

It should be expected that during this period, US and NATO aircraft carriers will operate from the southwestern part of the Norwegian Sea, together with aircraft deployed at land airfields.

At the second stage of hostilities - the destruction of surface, submarine and air groupings of the KSF in the Barents Sea. It can be assumed that for the implementation of this stage, the AUG will move to the northeastern part of the Norwegian Sea.

At the third stage:

- the deployment of the main forces of the fleet in the Barents Sea and the infliction of systematic strikes from its water area by carrier-based aviation and cruise missiles at land targets located in the depths of the Russian Federation;

- it is possible to conduct tactical landings on the Kola Peninsula.

Of course, all of the above is an outline of the broadest plan. For example, if the KSF does not begin to deploy forces in the Norwegian Sea, the AUG may move to its northeastern part already at the first stage, etc.

Also, of course, such a clash can develop into a nuclear conflict at any stage.

In this case, one should expect a missile attack by SSBNs concentrated in the Norwegian Sea, as well as the use of nuclear warheads from carrier-based aircraft and sea-based cruise missiles with nuclear warheads.

The author expresses his deepest gratitude in advance to all those competent readers of "VO" who will find the time and desire to point out the mistakes made in the composition of the forces or their tasks.

Продолжение следует ...
Author:
202 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Proton
    Proton 3 June 2021 04: 24
    +8
    The article is interesting, well-worked out.
    Already in the middle of the article, I realized what the author was leading to - we need aircraft carriers! hi
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      3 June 2021 06: 43
      +12
      Quote: Proton
      Already in the middle of the article, I realized what the author was leading to - we need aircraft carriers!

      So I undertook to substantiate their need for the Russian Navy - to write down their tasks. So I've been fighting for a long time to be clear, accessible, and from the beginning :)
      1. Boris55
        Boris55 3 June 2021 08: 37
        -2
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        So I undertook to substantiate their need for the Russian Navy - to write down their tasks.

        The task of the aircraft carrier group is to promote its interests in the world.

        1. While most of the Russian "elite" is promoting the interests of the West (the United States), we do not need aircraft carriers - they are doing an excellent job with their hegemony without us.

        2. "The PRC and the Russian Federation are two great powers, and there is not a single external force that can defeat them, they are only capable of destroying themselves," - publicist Li Cheng.

        In other words, until we defeat the fifth column in our country, no military power, no aircraft carrier, will save us from death from an internal enemy. In the last century, this happened twice and the USSR was not destroyed by nuclear bombings.

        After we change: the flag (http://fct-altai.ru/files/2021/Tricolor_09_04_2021.doc), the coat of arms, after the mausoleum on the day of victory will not be boarded up with plywood, and on the parade there will be наш red flag with hammer and sickle, Volgograd will be renamed Stalingrad, only after that we will need aircraft carriers, and until then we do not need them.

        You need to prioritize correctly.
        1. carstorm 11
          carstorm 11 4 June 2021 06: 27
          -2
          The banner of victory is always brought to the parade first. Red with hammer and sickle. It's strange not to know
          1. Konnick
            Konnick 4 June 2021 07: 00
            +9
            The banner of victory is always brought to the parade first. Red with hammer and sickle. It's strange not to know
            The last time the Banner of Victory was carried out in front of the tricolor was in 2015, now the tricolor is being carried out, followed by the banner group with the Banner of Victory.


            An active policy of decommunization began, and Shoigu began to pray.
            1. pin_code
              pin_code 4 June 2021 07: 12
              -1
              It's a shame, but let's hope for future leaders - these ... complete.
            2. carstorm 11
              carstorm 11 4 June 2021 07: 37
              -5
              The place of the state flag and the Victory Banner in one guard does not matter. I was talking about the very first pass. That they carry the banner of victory.
              1. Konnick
                Konnick 4 June 2021 08: 11
                +1
                ... I was talking about the very first pass. That they carry the banner of victory.

                What's the first pass?
                1. carstorm 11
                  carstorm 11 4 June 2021 08: 28
                  -3
                  This is also called the removal of the national flag and the Banner of Victory.
                  1. Konnick
                    Konnick 4 June 2021 08: 55
                    +1
                    This is also called the removal of the national flag and the Banner of Victory

                    Can I have a photo? And what is the name of what I showed in the photo.
        2. ramzay21
          ramzay21 4 June 2021 10: 32
          -2
          It is easier for the current leadership of the Russian Federation to dash around Krasnoyarsk than around Londongrad and Podmoyamyu, because no one of their friends or relatives lives there.
          And while the fifth column is sitting in the Kremlin, we will have neither a strong fleet nor a strong air force.
      2. Grits
        Grits 3 June 2021 09: 17
        +7
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        So I undertook to substantiate their need for the Russian Navy - to write down their tasks. So I've been fighting for a long time to be clear, accessible, and from the beginning :)

        I would like another similar review in the Far East. It seems to me that we have here much more interesting and confusing.
        1. dorz
          dorz 3 June 2021 10: 52
          +6
          If our Aerospace Forces and the Navy in the Far East are weak, then the Japanese may at some point convince themselves that we will not risk using nuclear weapons - and will attack.

          But they do not attack by themselves, but together with the Americans. To fight Japan is to fight the United States and a trailer with a NATO bloc.
          1. Kamarada
            Kamarada 3 June 2021 15: 03
            +6
            One by one, he will not risk it as clear as day. But as soon as the owner orders, they will gather in a friendly flock and rush. Even those who did not want to.
          2. Ryaruav
            Ryaruav 3 June 2021 18: 56
            +3
            Dmitry, and will your av in the Sea of ​​Okhotsk help you a lot?
            1. dorz
              dorz 4 June 2021 11: 36
              +2
              I believe that nothing will help at all. Freudian slip:
              Speaking at the youth forum "Territory of Meanings", the official recalled that Russia, as the successor of the Soviet Union, is ready to fulfill its obligations, including the transfer to Japan of the islands of Habomai and Shikotan after the conclusion of a peace treaty. .
              Then they explained that the minister was misunderstood. sad
        2. pin_code
          pin_code 4 June 2021 07: 14
          +3
          at the Pacific Fleet the situation is more awful. the length of the coastline. defense of Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky and Primorye, Sakhalin and Kuril Islands. there is something to think about.
      3. Anachoret
        Anachoret 3 June 2021 11: 10
        0
        author, please correct the text according to the meaning in this sentence
        that the NATO Air Force in the theater will be busy with "land affairs", and our KSF will be opposed only by the NATO Navy

        NATO-NATO (possibly NATO_USA or USA_NATO)
        thanks for the article) we are waiting for the continuation and in the Far East it would be interesting to "twist" possible scenarios
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          3 June 2021 11: 22
          +3
          Quote: Anchorite
          NATO-NATO (possibly NATO_USA or USA_NATO)

          No :))) In the first case, we are talking about the NATO Air Force, in the second - about the NATO Navy :)
          Quote: Anchorite
          Thank you for the article)

          And thank you!
          Quote: Anchorite
          and it would be interesting to "twist" possible scenarios in the Far East

          then, with your permission, I will first simulate the actions of the KSF to its logical conclusion, and only then I will take on the KTOF
          1. Victor Leningradets
            Victor Leningradets 4 June 2021 11: 11
            0
            Thank you so much for the valuable article, Andrey!
            Finally, you have moved on to theater operations.
            These are no longer "strategic balances" that political scientists love to build, but real war games.
            Only you did not choose the theater of operations correctly. There will be nothing on the Northern Fleet and in the Arctic, since there is no enemy as such. Neither we can attack northern Canada with the invading forces, nor can they carry out operations on Taimyr.
            There are three potential theaters:
            1) Region of the Black Sea.
            An extremely explosive area with a large accumulation of potential cannon fodder, ready to participate in the partition and plunder of Russia. The unfinished bridgeheads in the Caucasus and Ukraine allow the enemy to operate in a variety of ways, combining the actions of the Navy, Air Force and Ground Forces. The actions of the Black Sea Fleet will be paralyzed in the first days, if not the hours of the war, and the main actions will take place on land. Enemy amphibious operations are possible in the Crimea and on the Caucasian coast of the Black Sea.
            2) The region of the Baltic Sea.
            A much quieter theater, but extremely uncomfortable for us. Since the idea of ​​a preemptive invasion of the Baltics is obviously not being considered, the initiative in unleashing a war against Belarus, the Kaliningrad region and St. Petersburg will belong to NATO. An important aspect of the enemy offensive is the presence of an extensive "fifth column" in the named regions, which makes it possible, under certain circumstances, to use the scenario of declaring an alternative power in the occupied territory (similar to the color revolution in Libya). In this case, the Russian population will be used as hostages. BF will also be paralyzed at the very beginning of the operation.
            3) Region of the Far East.
            The only area where we can impose our initiative on the enemy. In alliance with China, it is possible to defeat the colonial forces of the United States and the Japanese Self-Defense Forces. At the same time, China will be assigned the area of ​​the Japanese expansion in 1941 - 1942. with the prospect of landing in Australia, Russia - the reconquest of Alaska, the Aleutian Islands and the seizure of the territory of Northern Canada.
            In this theater of operations, the role of the fleet is actually decisive.
            Well, all this is in my amateurish opinion.
            1. the most important
              the most important 6 June 2021 00: 06
              0
              Quote: Victor Leningradets
              Russia - the reconquest of Alaska, the Aleutian Islands and the seizure of the territory of Northern Canada.

              Even the USSR did not have such grandiose plans, although it was much stronger than modern Russia. And do not entertain yourself with illusions. After the outbreak of war with the United States and the gang that joined it, China will not take our side. China itself will begin aggression against Russia, Mongolia, Kazakhstan and Central Asia, hoping, and rightly so, that Russia will not resist all at once. That is why it is necessary to use nuclear weapons even against countries that do not have it, but that have started a war against Russia and have superiority in a certain theater of operations. For example Japan. The United States may well send her to slaughter just to test Russia's reaction.
      4. ccsr
        ccsr 3 June 2021 13: 10
        -2
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        So I undertook to substantiate their need for the Russian Navy - to write down their tasks.

        There is no such need for our Navy, and we must come to terms with this, and not pretend to be concerned about our security. Aircraft carriers are too expensive ships and will not play any role in a future war with our potential adversaries, they will simply be sunk in the very first few tens of minutes of the war if they threaten us.

        But here's the thing: if suddenly the Japanese decide to return these islands by force of conventional (conventional) weapons, and we cannot prevent them from doing so and will be forced to use tactical nuclear weapons, then our economic and reputational costs will be significantly higher than if we accept defeat and we will give up the indicated islands. Therefore, I cannot rule out a situation in which the leadership The Russian Federation will prefer to accept the loss of the Kuril Islands, but not to use nuclear weapons.

        This is complete nonsense, and it is not clear how this author undertakes such a geopolitical forecast, without taking into account the Japan-US Treaty, where the Japanese are prohibited from making such decisions without the Americans.
        It immediately follows that the author naively thinks that Japan will attack us, and our retaliatory strikes, not even with nuclear forces, will not inflict losses on American troops stationed on the Japanese islands, especially not Okinawa. This is a strange logic of the author, especially since Putin himself warned about the possibility of using nuclear weapons in the event of an attack on us and a threat to our security.
        However, even if the period of tension extends over several months, the US Navy will certainly not be able to deploy its full strength.

        It is sheer stupidity - none of the American military commanders would think to unmask their preparations for a surprise strike by such actions, and therefore several months of preparation looks absurd. The author apparently has not read anything except "Barbarossa", so it seems to him that this is a scenario for all time, and we will have time to deploy our forces in response, including aircraft carriers.
        There have already been precedents - both Damansky and Falklands. Theoretically, such a non-nuclear war "on a secondary matter" is possible even between the United States and the Russian Federation.

        As for Damansky, this is generally inappropriate, tk. it was a border conflict, and the Falklands are not an example for us at all - we have no overseas territories, and the Kaliningrad region is already reliably protected.
        But the author apparently does not know that, even at the operational level, real military operations were carried out - the introduction of troops into Czechoslovakia and Afghanistan. So it is from us that some countries must learn how to secretly and quickly seize command centers and eliminate leaders in order to achieve military success without unnecessary losses.
        There are still some bloopers in the author's article, but I think so far this is enough to understand that the author's dreams are hardly realizable as he imagines it. ...
        In the battle of the fleets, even in the days of the USSR, they did not really believe, and even now such illusions look ridiculous - our armed forces are given a completely different standard of time to destroy our main opponents, and from the entire fleet only SSBNs will participate in this.
        Let the author draw conclusions based on this, and not sell us nonsense about conventional weapons ...
        1. Boa kaa
          Boa kaa 3 June 2021 20: 00
          +5
          Quote: ccsr
          There are some more bloopers in the author's article ...

          Sergey, hi It is difficult to disagree with you, although I treat the author with due reverence. Andrei still works, writes and, as a rule, successfully and to the point. But he stepped on the slippery path of OI and strategy, and this is clearly not his topic.
          Now about what I cannot agree with in Andrey's article.
          1. Z. Brzezinski was an assistant to J. Carter for national security in the period from 1977 to 1981. Since 1981, he has already taught at Columbia University. And the crisis with a false "nuclear alarm" refers (in the text) to 1983 ... Before that, however, there were 2 false alarms from the early warning system on June 3 and 6, 1980. But the situation cleared up within a few minutes, straight to the command post NORAD. Therefore, I very much doubt that Brzezinski was raised in the middle of the night ...
          2. On the use of nuclear weapons and the dock for the Russian Federation in a local conflict. This is nonsense! Only the defeated sit in the dock! We, however, have not yet been defeated ... so - not a fact!
          3. Discussions about the Kuril Islands ... well, very "slippery". The Constitution of the Russian Federation with the adopted amendments clearly defines the "territorial" integrity of the Russian Federation. Therefore, the samurai will definitely get it to the fullest if they venture into the "northern" territories. I think the Yankees are smart enough to warn them against the shipuko. And, secondly, China will not stand aside in this situation. They have not yet settled with japa for 24 mlk of Chinese killed by the Japanese from 1937 to 1945! For the Chinese, they are the same Nazis as the German fascists are for us. And after the reunification of the PRC with Taiwan, there will be a turn for the distribution of japans. And they know this very well. China does not forget nothing!
          4. Arguments about mn isolation of Russia - not serious! We are a self-sufficient, huge country, and we have not yet quarreled with China. Therefore, there can be no talk of isolation. And on EUROPA - put the device with a left-hand thread and forget about these homosexuals and LGBT people!
          5. About the options for the beginning of JV. Failure is checked for at least 3 channels! SPRN, space, frequency analysis. And only after the operator's phrase "I confirm the reliability of the data!" - 180 seconds are allotted for this! The Apocalypse machine starts working ...
          At the expense of an armed conflict on the territory of a third country. This is possible, but theoretically. For in reality, the parties will try to hush up the conflict through deep channels. Because, if not a direct order - to start a database, the military will not voluntarily get into such an ass. Yankees want to live too.
          6. The "period of tension" is misinterpreted. This is the time until the first shot, and then - the maintenance of the database, of different intensities ...
          7. What does it mean to "understand" the approximate composition and strength of the enemy forces !? And why do you need naval intelligence, the analyst department of the GRU then? and other Stirlitz brothers !?
          8. About the role of the Navy in the armed conflict. This is a one-way journey: the death of a ship while maintaining a database will not be forgiven to anyone! This is definitely a war!
          9. There is no linear dependence of the number of submarines in the AUS / AUG on the number of escort ships. The submarines will most likely operate in reconnaissance and shock curtains, as part of the mobile submarine zones, move into directions dangerous from attacks by our SSGN / APRK, etc.
          10. About sea battles. Yes ... the forms of database maintenance for our forces will most likely be HITS, even for the operation, the strength is not yet scraped, however ... And so far, too, one can only dream of forces ... Attacks by Av and submarine forces in the form of an APRK - that's and all that is real today we can oppose the Yankees and K *. Therefore, one thing remains: to stun the applicants with a vigorous baton and then finish off the remnants. And this, whatever one may say, is a nuclear war with all that it implies ..
          However, thanks for the article. This is a very serious work, and I respect it. YOU, colleague --- PLUS. good
          1. ccsr
            ccsr 3 June 2021 21: 05
            -1
            Quote: Boa constrictor KAA
            But he stepped on the slippery path of OI and strategy, and this is clearly not his topic.

            Quite right, some of the local authors suffer from this, and he is not the first in this.
            Quote: Boa constrictor KAA
            Therefore, I very much doubt that Brzezinski was raised in the middle of the night ...

            This is generally some kind of fantasy, because they also have a list of officials who are first of all reported about such situations according to the queue on the list, and if Brzezinski was included there, then not in the first places. Why inform him if he was the first to report to the president or vice president?
            You yourself noticed the rest of the absurdities of the text of the article, so your conclusion
            Quote: Boa constrictor KAA
            Therefore, one thing remains: to stun the applicants with a vigorous baton and then finish off the remnants.
            is completely fair. I will even say more - the enemy should not know that we are going to do this, which is why stealth and shortening the preparation time for launch are given top priority. And it seems to the author of the article that the Battle of Tsushima is still haunted - apparently decided to prepare for a new one, but with aircraft carriers.
            1. pin_code
              pin_code 4 June 2021 07: 27
              0
              any attempts or loading of rockets, fuel, are tracked by both sides. a situation arises ... as in Latin, I will not even look. any attempts at aggression are noticeable in advance. the question is how to prevent them .. we need PLO, AWACS, EW, AUG, KUG aviation. well, not like karakurt and similar crafts.
          2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
            4 June 2021 07: 17
            0
            Alexander, welcome!
            Quote: Boa constrictor KAA
            Z. Brzezinski was J. Carter's National Security Assistant from 1977 to 1981. Since 1981, he has already taught at Columbia University. And the crisis with a false "nuclear alarm" refers (in the text) to 1983 ...

            The incident is dated November 9, 1979
            Quote: Boa constrictor KAA
            On the use of nuclear weapons and the dock for the Russian Federation in a local conflict. This is nonsense! Only the defeated sit in the dock!

            The North Koreans disagree with you. Look at the sanctions imposed on them for just one nuclear test program.
            Quote: Boa constrictor KAA
            Reasoning about the Kuril Islands ... well, very "slippery". The Constitution of the Russian Federation with the adopted amendments clearly defines the "territorial" integrity of the Russian Federation.

            And the publicly available information about our nuclear strategy does not imply the use of nuclear weapons in the absence of a threat of destruction of the Russian Federation.
            Quote: Boa constrictor KAA
            Arguments about mn isolation of Russia are not serious! We are a self-sufficient, huge country

            In which budget revenues from hydrocarbon trade and related taxes account for almost 45% of the federal budget. I will not even remember about other addictions
            Quote: Boa constrictor KAA
            Variants of the beginning of JV. Failure is checked for at least 3 channels! SPRN, space, frequency analysis. And only after the operator's phrase "I confirm the reliability of the data!" - 180 seconds are allotted for this! The Apocalypse machine starts working ...

            In the same 1989, the situation was saved by a direct violation of the charter.
            Quote: Boa constrictor KAA
            The "period of tension" is misinterpreted. This is the time until the first shot, and then - the maintenance of the database, of different intensities ...

            So it seems that I also wrote.
            Quote: Boa constrictor KAA
            On the role of the Navy in an armed conflict. This is a one-way journey: the death of a ship while maintaining a database will not be forgiven to anyone! This is definitely a war!

            The article does not say otherwise
            Quote: Boa constrictor KAA
            There is no linear dependence of the number of submarines in the AUS / AUG on the number of escort ships.

            Yes, just look at the statistics of the US AUG's exits to the fighting
            Quote: Boa constrictor KAA
            The submarines will most likely operate in reconnaissance and shock curtains, as part of the mobile submarine zones, move into directions dangerous from attacks by our SSGN / APRK, etc.

            For this they have separate PLA connections, which I wrote about
            1. Silhouette
              Silhouette 4 June 2021 12: 16
              0
              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              And the publicly available information about our nuclear strategy does not imply the use of nuclear weapons in the absence of a threat of destruction of the Russian Federation.

              What do you mean by the threat of the destruction of the Russian Federation? Or rather, are there any official explanations on this score? ... I dare to assure you that no, because this verbal construction is purely political.
            2. Boa kaa
              Boa kaa 4 June 2021 18: 04
              +1
              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              So it seems that I also wrote.

              Andrew, hello! hi
              I am writing the answer: bully
              1. There are no sanctions dock in The Hague. The fate of comrade Kim Jong-un is not comparable to the fate of President Milosevic, is it?
              2. Amendments to the Constitution of the Russian Federation on the issues of the territorial integrity of the state will certainly make a change in the issues of the country's nuclear policy. We just don't know it yet. But, judging by the fact that the GDP is ready to "knock out teeth" to everyone who tries to bite off a piece of Russia, this issue has been resolved. Especially the right to use nuclear weapons is at the President-Supreme Civil Code of the RF Armed Forces.
              3. The share of oil exports in the total volume of Russian exports in 2020 amounted to 21,5% ...
              About other addictions. I hope you will not deny that we are also gradually getting rid of them. With the element base of the FEM, it is more difficult, but 28 nm is still enough for avionics of missiles and torpedoes, by the way, they are already shoved too. And idle speculation about our total lag from the West is oil in the ears of shitcrats, so that they do not foolishly hang themselves out of longing.
              4. In my opinion, it is unethical to compare the early warning systems of 1989 and those of today with Voronezh, Windows and KS ... I have already written: the classification is rigid and reliable. Therefore, there is no need to wag ...
              5. Andrey, but then you write: “the beginning of full-scale hostilities will be preceded by a certain period of tension (or even hostilities without the use of nuclear weapons), which can be measured in days, weeks and even months "...
              Well, and how do you order this to be understood !?
              6. I repeat once again: the order of forces (PLA) is determined based on the expected opposition of the enemy, and not on the number of escort ships. The boats operate as part of movable curtains, in threatened directions extended far ahead of the AUS. This tactic and combat use is being practiced all the time. And what does it have to do with it The "exit" of the AUS to combat operations, if no one really opposed them under water. You will not seriously talk about the Iranian submarine forces in the areas of combat maneuvering of the Avraham Lincoln AVMA in the Arabian Sea! What nafig PLA !? only SSGNs with winged mallets! bully

              And then, I do not reproach you for anything, I just express my view on the problem. It is different from yours, but that does not mean that you have to make excuses. You should be glad that you are being read attentively and that something is being made about on the merits of the problem you raised ...
              Truth is born in the diversity of views, and not in the arguments of stubborn "rams" yes .
              Once again, thanks for writing. Best regards, Boa constrictor. drinks
              1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                4 June 2021 21: 16
                +2
                Good evening, Alexander!
                Thanks for the constructiveness! hi drinks I answer as I can :)
                Quote: Boa constrictor KAA
                Sanctions are not a dock in The Hague. The fate of comrade Kim Jong-un is not comparable to the fate of President Milosevic, is it?

                I agree, but it doesn't make North Korea any easier
                Quote: Boa constrictor KAA
                Amendments to the Constitution of the Russian Federation on the issues of the territorial integrity of the state will certainly make a change in the issues of the country's nuclear policy. We just don't know it yet.

                I would be glad if this happens, but so far it has not happened. Documents on this topic are classified, and what is heard from the stands - only in the event of a threat to the existence of the country.
                Quote: Boa constrictor KAA
                Moreover, the President-Supreme Civil Code of the RF Armed Forces has the right to use nuclear weapons.

                And this is "all the more"? Alexander, I'm not sure. On the Su-24M, he answered with tomatoes, of course, I don’t know the circumstances, and I don’t want to judge in a rush, but ...
                Quote: Boa constrictor KAA
                The share of oil exports in the total volume of Russian exports in 2020 amounted to 21,5% ...

                Mineral products (which includes oil and gas and some other minerals) - 51,19% of all exports in 2020
                But the most important thing, dear Alexander, is that the share in exports is one thing, and the share in the federal budget is quite another. Alas, but the severance tax rules.
                Quote: Boa constrictor KAA
                About other addictions. I hope you will not deny that we are also gradually getting rid of them.

                Unfortunately no. A huge part of the seed fund is bought abroad. Let's take milk. The herds of dairy cows are replenished through purchases of dairy breeds abroad. They are milked with imported equipment, and dairies are bottling this milk again with imported equipment. We purchased pharmaceuticals for $ 2020 billion in 10,8.
                Let's just say that in some areas we have made progress in import substitution. Alas, very local.
                Quote: Boa constrictor KAA
                In my opinion, it is unethical to compare the early warning systems of 1989 and today with Voronezh, Windows and KS ... I have already written: the classification is rigid and reliable. Therefore, there is no need to wag ...

                Oh, come on. When did I wag? To be wrong - I can, I can not understand something, it happened and persisted in delusions, because it did not immediately reach what knowledgeable and kind people explained, but to wag ...
                I, dear Alexander, wrote
                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                In the same 1989, the situation was saved by a direct violation of the charter.

                from the following considerations. I don’t argue that technology is much better now than in 1989, but there is such a thing - more complex technology is also more prone to failures. To put it simply - computer technology today is much more complicated than the first IBM with a 386th processor, but they have no less glitches. And when such a glitch appears, everything is decided by a specific person who has to make a decision in conditions of information deficiency. It is clear that today there is reinsurance, several verification channels, but ... And, by the way, everything depends not only on us, there are also Americans.
                Quote: Boa constrictor KAA
                Andrei, but then you write: "the beginning of full-scale hostilities will be preceded by a certain period of tension (or even hostilities without the use of nuclear weapons), which can be measured in days, weeks and even months" ...
                Well, and how do you order this to be understood !?

                I order to understand this (sorry, Alexander, this is a joke, I could not resist) as an unfortunate wording - it meant that at first - a period of tension, then perhaps - DB without the use of nuclear weapons, and then - Armageddon. Sorry again - I put it unsuccessfully.
                Quote: Boa constrictor KAA
                I repeat once again: the force order (PLA) is determined based on the expected enemy opposition, and not on the number of escort ships. The boats operate as part of movable curtains, in threatened directions extended far ahead of the AUS.

                But here I still ask for clarification. I have always believed that 1-2 nuclear submarines are assigned to the AUG exclusively for its own submarine, well, maybe some other tasks, but it is in the order, but the tasks of submarine warfare are solved by individual submarine formations. I'm wrong?
                Quote: Boa constrictor KAA
                And then, I do not reproach you for anything, I just express my view on the problem. It is different from yours, but that does not mean that you have to make excuses.

                So I'm not making excuses :))) I'm trying to figure it out, and you help me a lot in this, for which - a huge thank you! drinks I do not make excuses and do not argue, I clarify and try to understand what was wrong, what I wrote correctly, etc. In some ways, I may not agree, but I'm not looking for a discussion, I would get to the bottom of the truth :) hi
              2. Status
                Status 5 June 2021 21: 10
                -1
                Yesterday it was clearly stated that amendments to the Constitution are not important when it comes to concluding a peace treaty. Read and draw conclusions
        2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          4 June 2021 07: 21
          +1
          Quote: ccsr
          It is sheer stupidity - none of the American military leaders would ever dream of using such actions to unmask their preparations for a surprise strike.

          But I specifically gave a link to the first article, which described just a sudden blow ...
          And like a Russian in white, he wrote that the deployment is taking place in a situation where neither side wants war, but is trying to confirm the seriousness of its intentions. Before proving that this does not happen, I recommend that you remember at least the Cuban missile crisis.
          1. ccsr
            ccsr 4 June 2021 12: 30
            +3
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            But I specifically gave a link to the first article, which described just a sudden blow ...

            Do you think that I just have to read all your articles? Yes, there are so many nonsense in them that I refuted a couple of years ago that I don't even want to seriously discuss your fantasies. And now you are rushing about with your ideas, completely not understanding what we can afford within the military budget, demonstrating to everyone your "concern", although any military specialist should think first of all about the effectiveness of weapons. But if you look at this, then all your whims with aircraft carriers and the surface fleet suggests that you do not understand at all what benefit they can bring us in a war with our main opponents.
            So why should I seriously study what you wrote there?
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            Before proving that this does not happen, I recommend that you remember at least the Cuban missile crisis.

            That you are rushing about this Cuban missile crisis as a written sack, which happened only because we did not have intercontinental missiles of the Strategic Missile Forces at that time. Since then, at least once has something like this happened, not to mention that Nixon himself came to sign a treaty with us on the limitation of strategic arms?
            Maybe it will be enough to remember Tsar Pea, but it is better to realistically assess the capabilities of our enemy and what we can afford so that it never occurs to him to attack us. Aircraft carriers will definitely not be able to help us in this matter, which means they must end up in the dustbin of history, just like the battleships of Soviet times.
            1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              5 June 2021 13: 47
              +3
              Quote: ccsr
              Do you think that I just have to read all your articles?

              I will tell you a terrible military secret. You see, normal people first read, then criticize :)))) Your "did not read, but I condemn" looks at least ... funny.
              Quote: ccsr
              And now you are rushing about with your ideas, completely not understanding what we can afford within the military budget.

              Unlike you, I understand. https://topwar.ru/181285-o-stoimosti-flota-kotoryj-nam-nuzhen.html
              Quote: ccsr
              That you are rushing about this Cuban missile crisis as a written sack, which happened only because we did not have intercontinental missiles of the Strategic Missile Forces at that time.

              Because he completely refutes your nonsense. That's all.
              1. ccsr
                ccsr 5 June 2021 15: 36
                0
                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                I will tell you a terrible military secret.

                You are not allowed to see her, do not puff out your cheeks.
                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                Unlike you, I understand.

                You don’t understand anything, and besides me, other authors have told you about this.
                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                Because he completely refutes your nonsense. That's all.

                This is due to the lack of real examples of the confrontation between the USSR and the United States after the Cuban missile crisis, there is nothing, so you are speculating on the period when we did not have a sufficient number of intercontinental missiles in our armament. You don’t understand anything in the new confrontation, so you are running around with your Cuban missile crisis, not even realizing that the situation has changed a long time ago, and you didn’t notice it either.
      5. Barberry25
        Barberry25 3 June 2021 17: 33
        0
        crying Well, why! Well, that's enough already ..
      6. pin_code
        pin_code 4 June 2021 07: 10
        0
        quite accessible, and the beginnings are known ... unfortunately, not everyone.
      7. Vladimir1155
        Vladimir1155 4 June 2021 09: 25
        -1
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        I undertook to substantiate their necessity in the Russian Navy - to write down their tasks. So I've been fighting for how long

        that YOU are beating like a fish on ice, trying to prove an unprovable chimera? Russian aircraft carriers are not needed, obviously, including in the scenario you are describing. Even if the Americans begin to escalate, then all their aircraft carrier troughs will be easily destroyed in the Norwegian and Barents Seas. Our coastal aviation, coastal missile defense and our submarines, therefore, they simply will not go to our shores, so as not to drown in shame like the Spanish great armada ... everyone is tired of waiting ... here is another article where you did not provide such evidence, because there is none!
    2. antivirus
      antivirus 3 June 2021 09: 11
      +2
      Well, he has a bigger hozza and a trough higher.
      and from 87 to 89, decisions were made to create their own financial elite -and created- at the expense of the average salary in the country and pioneer camps. and do not need that 10AB.
      like he said his wise thoughts 1 year ago - he does not understand.
      when they build 1 or 2 AB - AizCh will ascribe it to himself - not the will of the collective depaska. and those just need to protect the servers in offshore banks .. everything has a price. and the blood and life of the military (pros) - does not matter at that price
  2. carstorm 11
    carstorm 11 3 June 2021 04: 37
    +5
    Andrew. You have a lot of contradictions about the Kuril Islands and you can be understood. If they attack and hit them, we will lose. We will not embed, too, but we will lose less. The point is that it is precisely the understanding that we will embed it that is deterrence. There are no other options and could never have been. At the time of the Union, with its capabilities, Japan did not really have anything. And the danger has grown already in our time. It is retribution that will always keep them in line and everyone understands this.
    1. Silhouette
      Silhouette 3 June 2021 07: 52
      +21
      Quote: carstorm 11
      Andrew. You have a bunch of contradictions

      The fact is that all the concepts of the supporters of aircraft carriers in our Navy are based on contradictions, and not on cause-and-effect relationships. And this problem is mainly worried about amateurs, who, like Andrei from Chelyabinsk, never had anything to do with the fleet, Timokhin too, and Klimov was found on submarines for some time and was on the deck of an aircraft carrier as a guest or a tourist. This "aircraft carrier lobby" contradicts each other in their evidence and themselves, but they stand their ground - aircraft carriers are needed! Timokhin even invented a coastal defense aircraft carrier. Andrei, in this article, correctly writes that aircraft carriers are not needed to solve problems in the coastal zone.
      "And it's also clear that we don't need an ocean-going fleet to do this."
      Andrey's reasoning about the use of nuclear weapons makes you smile. The person has no idea about its application in the navy. On my ship, on combat duty or combat duty, there were always two vigorous bonbs. And they would be applied, if necessary, without fear and doubt, as well as looking back at the UN, the Nuremberg Tribunal or the court in The Hague. The attack of AUG by aviation in combat conditions is carried out primarily with special ammunition, because there may not be a second chance. Therefore, any military action at sea will inevitably lead to the use of nuclear weapons. One must understand this and not indulge oneself with the illusions of storming the Kuril Islands. It is necessary to understand that we will never fight with Japan alone. And in general we do not have a single enemy, but only a collective one, and therefore we will destroy everything at once. There is no other way out.
      1. antivirus
        antivirus 3 June 2021 09: 16
        -1
        compare the size of your text and the article - I agree with your opinion, not A.
        proportionally shorter to your reasoning - action plan in the General Staff
      2. Grits
        Grits 3 June 2021 09: 20
        +13
        Quote: Silhouette
        And they would be applied, if necessary, without fear and doubt, as well as looking back at the UN, the Nuremberg Tribunal or the court in The Hague. The attack of AUG by aviation in combat conditions is carried out primarily with special ammunition, because there may not be a second chance. Therefore, any military action at sea will inevitably lead to the use of nuclear weapons.

        To bring down AUG by simple means, without the use of nuclear weapons, is simply stupid. These funds themselves may simply not be enough. The carriers of these funds may not be enough for the second run. The power of the adversary is already hefty
      3. vostok68
        vostok68 3 June 2021 10: 15
        +4
        There is a lot of truth in your comment! In peacetime 2, in the threatened period 4, and then if it was possible to return to the native pier - the arsenal is full and rushed, also served, though urgent. And the article is good, Andrey is trying to comprehend with his mind the current state of the Navy, it is interesting to read! Professionals (like Timokhin) do not inspire confidence in me, unfortunately
      4. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        3 June 2021 10: 59
        +2
        Quote: Silhouette
        This "aircraft carrier lobby" contradicts each other in their evidence and themselves

        Forgive me, but where am I contradicting myself? :)
        Quote: Silhouette
        Andrey's reasoning about the use of nuclear weapons makes you smile.

        I would be glad to have detailed explanations.
        Quote: Silhouette
        On my ship, on combat duty or on alert, there were always two vigorous bonbs. And they would be applied, if necessary, without fear and doubt, as well as looking back at the UN, the Nuremberg Tribunal or the court in The Hague.

        The fact that you would have applied them without regard to the indicated instances is beyond doubt and is not disputed in the article. But the decisions about the war are not made by the military, but by politicians. And so they just have to take into account all of the above.
        Quote: Silhouette
        The attack of AUG by aviation in combat conditions is carried out primarily with special ammunition, because there may not be a second chance.

        The use of special ammunition will almost automatically start an all-out nuclear war. What is more important than increasing the likelihood of AUG destruction. Accordingly, in my opinion, it is not worth ignoring the option of attacking the AUG with a non-nuclear weapon. Where am I wrong? Again, I will be grateful for the explanations
        Quote: Silhouette
        Therefore, any military action at sea will inevitably lead to the use of nuclear weapons.

        Not yet. And yes, I do not refuse to consider nuclear war at all, I just see other options along with it that seem realistic to me.
        1. Silhouette
          Silhouette 3 June 2021 17: 25
          +2
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          Forgive me, but where am I contradicting myself? :)

          To substantiate the need for aircraft carriers for Russia, you cite as evidence arguments that work against this idea. And this article is an excellent confirmation of this.
          You agree that in the near sea zone (dear to my heart the Japanese, as well as the Black and Baltic Seas), aircraft carriers are not needed, and the Klimovsky (may Timokhin forgive me) coastal defense aircraft carrier is a figment of a sick imagination, and in the distant one they are useless and utopian without powerful foreign bases and the supply fleet. The same Timokhin here at VO in the comments challenged my arguments against aircraft carriers about the lack of geographical conditions for basing aircraft carriers in Russia (the country is large, but nowhere to be based!), The inability to exploit the existing one, etc., and he himself later repeated in Vzglyad them on all counts. But I made a conclusion: it is necessary to build aircraft carriers! And he also does not see contradictions in his reasoning.
          Here you write: "the prevention of a counterforce strike is not the only task of the Russian Navy." I immediately have a question: "Counterforce strike" - what is this? ... Where is this from? ... What is this about? ... There is no such task for the fleet.
          Your arguments about the possibility for Russia of a major (???!) Non-nuclear conflict at sea are primitive and superficial. You cannot consider hypothetical and abstract options against only England, Norway and the United States, as you do. We must talk about the real ones. And the reality is that a major conflict can only be on the principle of "one against all", ie. Russia versus NATO in the west or Japan + NATO in the east. In principle, there can be no other possible LARGE military conflicts in nature. You just have to understand that any hostilities at sea between Russia and the United States, Britain, France, Japan, will inevitably lead to the use of nuclear weapons - be it missiles, torpedoes or depth charges with SBS. Nuclear submarines are destroyed primarily by nuclear weapons. So is the aircraft carrier. And this does not depend on politicians, but on the logic of the war. Therefore, your call "to ignore the option of attacking AUG with non-nuclear weapons is still, in my opinion, not worth it." - in favor of the poor in reason and who do not understand simple military truths that having nuclear weapons on board, no one will ever attack an aircraft carrier with conventional weapons. What else
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          Not yet.

          so we have not fought with anyone at sea. Neither the United States nor England.
          1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
            4 June 2021 07: 44
            +1
            Quote: Silhouette
            To substantiate the need for aircraft carriers for Russia, you cite as evidence arguments that work against this idea.

            I have not quoted anything yet. I didn't even get to the tasks of the aircraft carriers.
            Quote: Silhouette
            Here you write: "the prevention of a counterforce strike is not the only task of the Russian Navy." I immediately have a question: "Counterforce strike" - what is this? ... Where is this from? ... What is this about? ...

            I wrote this here https://topwar.ru/182849-o-roli-vmf-rf-v-preduprezhdenii-jadernoj-vojny.html
            Quote: Silhouette
            Your arguments about the possibility for Russia of a major (???!) Non-nuclear conflict at sea are primitive and superficial.

            Yes, so be it. The only question is that I admit the possibility of such a conflict along with a nuclear one. Do you not allow this? No question, we will assume that the author is mistaken, consider only the option of a nuclear conflict. Because I write about both nuclear and non-nuclear.
            Quote: Silhouette
            You cannot consider hypothetical and abstract options against only England, Norway and the United States, as you do. We must talk about the real ones. And the reality is that a major conflict can only be on the principle of "one against all",

            Actually, the situation described exactly corresponds to the "one against all" option. In this case, it is Norway, England and the United States that will act against the KSF. No, if you think that someone else will climb to the north besides the above, tell me about it, and explain why, no question, I will include them there.
            It seemed to me that I expressed myself very clearly - I take the maximum level of confrontation, but I consider only part of it, since if we take to describe the conflict in all directions and seas - the meeting of V.I. Lenin will work. Therefore, I take precisely the global conflict (the US and NATO and Japan against us), but I consider only one part of it, the one that will take place in the north. Moreover, both in nuclear and non-nuclear versions.
            Quote: Silhouette
            You just have to understand that any hostilities at sea between Russia and the United States, England, France, Japan, will inevitably lead to the use of nuclear weapons

            I don’t deny it. I seem to have written directly that even if the war starts with the use of conventional weapons, there are great chances of an escalation to Armageddon. And I can't figure out what's wrong.
            Quote: Silhouette
            Therefore, your call "to ignore the option of attacking the AUG with a non-nuclear weapon is still, in my opinion, not worth it." - in favor of the poor in reason and who do not understand simple military truths that having nuclear weapons on board, no one will ever attack an aircraft carrier with conventional weapons.

            Firstly, this has already happened in the world - the Falklands. The British had nuclear weapons, the Argentines - an aircraft carrier (not much worse than the British), and there was no question of any nuclear weapons. Secondly, I'm sorry, but there may not be nuclear weapons on board.
            In September 1991, US President George W. Bush announced unilateral nuclear disarmament measures that included the elimination of all US shorter-range land-based nuclear missiles, the withdrawal of all tactical nuclear weapons from US surface ships and multipurpose submarines, the removal of all strategic nuclear bombers (dropping bombs from aircraft) and the rejection of the further development of multiple-charge warheads.
            The following month, Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev reciprocated, announcing similar nuclear disarmament measures by the Soviet Union, decommissioning anti-aircraft missiles with nuclear warheads and destroying all nuclear mines.

            Thirdly, the military are still people forced, and will follow the orders of the top leadership. However, I will not argue here if you think that our military will immediately begin to plant nuclear weapons - I am ready to consider this option
            Quote: Silhouette
            so we have not fought with anyone at sea. Neither the United States nor England.

            So they fought without us :))) Falklands
            1. Silhouette
              Silhouette 4 June 2021 11: 37
              +2
              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              Because I write about both nuclear and non-nuclear.

              Any non-nuclear conflict at sea between Russia and the United States will inevitably lead to a nuclear one. Non-nuclear can only be seen as a possible prelude to nuclear. This must be clearly understood and not indulge in illusions. Battleships do not start combat with each other with small or medium caliber, but immediately use the main caliber. For there is no time for jokes. The Falklands are not an indicator, because, firstly, Argentina is not a nuclear state, but a third world country, and secondly, there was simply no such need. There were enough conventional torpedoes for a helpless, blind in terms of PLO decrepit cruiser. Thirdly, the Falklands was a small war of prestige over a few barren islands and 200 residents who didn't care, and we're going to have a war of survival. These are two different things. Comparing them is inappropriate and stupid.
              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              I seem to have written directly that even if the war starts with the use of conventional weapons, there are great chances of escalation to Armageddon. And I can't figure out what's wrong.

              Not so - that the chances of Armageddon are not great, but inevitable - i.e. 100%.
              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              the military are still people forced, and will follow the orders of the top leadership. However, I will not argue here if you think that our military will immediately begin to plant nuclear weapons - I am ready to consider this option

              Not immediately, but in the presence of appropriate targets - AUG and nuclear submarines. For this, additional instructions with what weapon to wet them are not required.
              1. ccsr
                ccsr 4 June 2021 12: 45
                0
                Quote: Silhouette
                firstly, Argentina is not a nuclear state, but a third world country, and secondly, there was simply no such need.

                As far as I know, the Americans warned the Argentine leadership that nuclear weapons would be used against them if they put up serious resistance and inflict heavy losses on the British. Whether it was blackmail, or the Americans themselves did not want to get involved in this business, now one can only guess, because the archives have not been disclosed. But it is possible that the plan for the use of nuclear weapons was approved even before the ships went on a campaign, and this, as I understand it, became known to the Americans as a NATO ally.
                1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                  5 June 2021 13: 50
                  +2
                  Quote: ccsr
                  As far as I know, the Americans warned the Argentine leadership that nuclear weapons would be used against them if they put up serious resistance and inflict heavy losses on the British.

                  Links to the studio, "highley like" You are our
                  1. ccsr
                    ccsr 5 June 2021 15: 38
                    -2
                    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                    Links to the studio, "highley like" You are our

                    In the editorial of "Pravda" they wrote about this, of course, you are our "enlightened" ...
                    This was written about in special editions, to which you certainly will not be allowed, and I constantly studied them due to my official duties.
                    1. timokhin-aa
                      timokhin-aa 8 June 2021 12: 59
                      +1
                      You shouldn't have been released from the hospital.
          2. pin_code
            pin_code 4 June 2021 07: 50
            0
            you ... let's say there are 300-400 fighters in the Kamchatka area at airfields to cover the near sea zone, if the enemy has, say, 1000 km from the coast 2 US AUG and in the Vladivostok area 1 US AUG and the Japanese fleet (we will throw out South Korea ). question .. how many shore-based fighters are needed to repel a hypothetical attack by the us navy and allies in the directions of Kamchatka and Primorye? and how many fighter aircraft will there be in the western direction ??? the task is quite simple ... if you do not want to go to heaven, but you want to live as before.
            1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              4 June 2021 10: 39
              +2
              Quote: pin_code
              you have ... let's say there are 300-400 fighters on airfields in the Kamchatka area to cover the near sea zone

              So we don't have that much in all the videoconferencing ... crying
        2. pin_code
          pin_code 4 June 2021 07: 41
          0
          I will say this ... they cause more comments from the apponents. but this is not important ... how they will smile, if God forbid the scenario is real. first of all, they will remember their answers or your arguments ... rather the third or even the fourth ...
        3. Vladimir1155
          Vladimir1155 4 June 2021 09: 33
          +1
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          The use of special ammunition will almost automatically start an all-out nuclear war.

          why did you decide so? the Americans developed a special concept of a limited nuclear war and applied it 40 years before development (Hiroshima and Nagasaki), they actively use depleted uranium in Iraq ... and in general it is useless to predict the future and reason what will lead to without specifics, it can lead, but it may not lead, there may be third options ...
          1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
            4 June 2021 10: 38
            +1
            Quote: vladimir1155
            why do you think so?

            Vladimir, read CAREFULLY what is written. This postulate was not put forward by me, but by the respected Silhouette
          2. Silhouette
            Silhouette 4 June 2021 12: 24
            0
            Quote: vladimir1155
            the Americans developed a special concept of limited nuclear war and applied it 40 years before development (Hiroshima and Nagasaki), they are actively using depleted uranium in Iraq ...

            Not certainly in that way. Or rather, not at all. In Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the Americans used everything they had at that time. That is, the use of nuclear weapons was total, not limited. The very concept of a limited nuclear war appeared later and not for the USSR, but for underdeveloped non-nuclear states. Depleted uranium is not a nuclear weapon.
            1. Vladimir1155
              Vladimir1155 4 June 2021 21: 23
              +2
              Quote: Silhouette
              In Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the Americans used everything they had at that time. That is, the use of nuclear weapons was total, not limited. The very concept of a limited nuclear war appeared later and not for the USSR, but for underdeveloped non-nuclear states. Depleted uranium is not a nuclear weapon.

              in general, it is true, but how it will turn out is not clear, in any case, it is clear that for the Russian Federation the only response to any aggression is a nuclear strike, because conventional weapons are not developed, a conventional war for the Russian Federation makes sense only with a deliberately weak enemy
      5. Per se.
        Per se. 3 June 2021 11: 15
        +8
        Quote: Silhouette
        The fact is that all the concepts of the supporters of aircraft carriers in our Navy are based on contradictions, and not on cause-and-effect relationships. And this problem worries mainly amateurs
        Sergei Gorshkov certainly cannot be called an amateur, as well as many specialists for whom aviation at sea is not a contradiction, but a causal relationship, the development of weapons and their carriers.

        If we talk about amateurs, the amateur John Clerk, a clothing merchant, wrote the booklet "An inquiry into naval tactics" ("To the question of naval tactics"). For the first time advice from his tactics were applied in the battle of the Isles of All Saints in 1782, where Admiral Rodney, thanks to her, defeated the French. Hiram Maxim, who had never served in the army, not only invented his famous machine gun, but also was engaged in the invention of underwater mines and torpedoes, he also developed a project for an air torpedo. His work on the improvement of explosives is of the greatest importance. In this area, the introduction of smokeless gunpowder is associated with the name of Maxim, which essentially made a revolution in artillery, and in small arms in general. So there is no need to speculate, "who knew the deck under his feet," who may or may not have a correct opinion about the fleet.

        "Therefore, any hostilities at sea will inevitably lead to the use of nuclear weapons.". Is that so? One of the last major battles at sea, for the Falklands (1982), just showed that the possession of nuclear weapons (Great Britain) does not guarantee protection from a conflict at sea, even with an enemy that does not have nuclear weapons (Argentina As well as its inevitable use for a guaranteed victory, the British were forced to send a squadron, without which they would most likely lose the islands.

        Now about Japan, I must say right away that this, like Germany, is still actually a US-occupied country, which is unlikely to independently, without a signal from Washington, decide on anything in relation to the Kuriles. To use nuclear weapons at sea, or not to use, will again be decided by the land minister of defense and the same Supreme Commander-in-Chief. Here, only, behind them are still oligarch brothers, our entire "elite", which keeps "back-breaking labor" from those with whom we would have to fight. Therefore, in the selected capitalism, in our dependence on its world leader and master, first of all there will be a problem on the contradictions, which is dearer and closer to whom. Only a truly independent country would want to have a strong, full-fledged fleet, and a full-fledged fleet implies the solution of all tasks at sea that cannot be solved without aviation, including deck-based aircraft.
        1. 911sx
          911sx 4 June 2021 01: 16
          +2
          I fully agree with Per se. I will only add that on land they are unlikely to come to us, we are traditionally strong there. But from the sea ... It is from the sea that Russia is now practically unarmed and weak as never before. Coastal forces cannot resolve the issue of protecting maritime borders, and even more so SSBNs, on which many rely. The length of our maritime borders is enormous, more than that of the Americans, and the forces and means at sea are an order of magnitude less. So is it any wonder the desire of the Anglo-Saxons to dominate our borders, if we have nothing more corvette. The ideas that we are a continental state (and there are such opinions among the population), that the ocean-going fleet is expensive (not cheap, let's face it), that everything is our core, do not have Russian roots. These are elements of a hybrid war. A war that has been waged for a long time and quite successfully. Someone bothers the brain, and someone gets grants. In short, learn to analyze, not repeat someone's thoughts.
          1. 911sx
            911sx 4 June 2021 01: 19
            +2
            And for the article - thanks, as always there is something to think about ..
      6. ccsr
        ccsr 3 June 2021 13: 15
        +3
        Quote: Silhouette
        There is no other way out.

        I completely agree with all your conclusions - this was the case not only in the navy, but also in other branches of the armed forces.
      7. pin_code
        pin_code 4 June 2021 07: 36
        0
        You, as a person related to the fleet, reveal to us the secrets of the tactics of dealing with the AUG, KUG, and anti-aircraft missile defense aircraft of the enemy. I'd like to read your opinion on this issue. and ... yes, the enemy's multipurpose boats and the fight against them.
        1. timokhin-aa
          timokhin-aa 8 June 2021 13: 01
          +1
          He does not know.
  3. riwas
    riwas 3 June 2021 05: 01
    +5
    Not necessarily nuclear war. Under certain circumstances, this can be a local conflict. In them, the United States relies heavily on the initial strike of the Kyrgyz Republic from the sea. In Iraq, 4,5 thousand CD were issued. Moreover, the blow was delivered not only from submarines, but also from surface ships. To it is added an air strike and now also a land strike (in connection with the US withdrawal from the treaty).
  4. Vladimir_2U
    Vladimir_2U 3 June 2021 05: 08
    +16
    the maximum weakening of our nuclear forces by destroying SSBNs of the KSF by the MAPL and patrol aircraft;
    Andrey, with all due respect, but the destruction of SSBNs is not even a reason for a nuclear war, it is automatically the beginning of a nuclear war.

    we, through a tragic misunderstanding, shot down a South Korean Boeing 747
    There was a provocation, not a "misunderstanding" at all.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      3 June 2021 06: 47
      +5
      Quote: Vladimir_2U
      Andrey, with all due respect, but the destruction of SSBNs is not even a reason for a nuclear war, it is automatically the beginning of a nuclear war.

      Honestly, I myself have doubts. But the admiral of the fleet Kapitanets I.M. in his book, in the section
      "THE POSSIBLE NATURE OF A LOCAL OR LARGE-SCALE WAR AGAINST RUSSIA AND THE CIS" as one of the tasks of the fleet in the north directly indicates
      maximum weakening of the NSNF of the Northern Fleet by searching for SSBNs in the Barents Sea and adjacent areas of the Arctic before the start of hostilities, establishing tracking them during a threatened period and destroying them with the start of hostilities by the forces of a submarine and a bpa aircraft during an anti-submarine operation
      1. Doccor18
        Doccor18 3 June 2021 07: 31
        +5
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        Quote: Vladimir_2U
        Andrey, with all due respect, but the destruction of SSBNs is not even a reason for a nuclear war, it is automatically the beginning of a nuclear war.

        Honestly, I myself have doubts ...

        How many of them are there, these SSBNs ... 11-12 ...
        On KSF 6-7, of which at sea - 3 (maximum). If the enemy's submarine submarines destroy 2 of them, then 99,99% of Russia will not immediately launch a massive nuclear missile strike against the United States. Lost contact with 2 SSBNs ... What is it ... Some time is needed to clarify the circumstances. Meanwhile, the Navy has already lost 16-17% of its nuclear potential ...
        1. Cherry Nine
          Cherry Nine 3 June 2021 08: 54
          +7
          Quote: Doccor18
          The Navy has already lost 16-17% of its nuclear potential ...

          No, the arithmetic is different. Only boats on alert are counted. So 2 is 50-100%, considering how many of them are usually in the sea.
          And to those who are at the bases, in this situation, it already flies.
        2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          3 June 2021 11: 02
          +6
          Quote: Doccor18
          On KSF 6-7, of which at sea - 3 (maximum)

          At sea 2-3 for both fleets
          Quote: Doccor18
          What is this ... Some time is needed to clarify the circumstances. Meanwhile, the Navy has already lost 16-17% of its nuclear potential ...

          Alas, but - even more
  5. husband
    husband 3 June 2021 05: 09
    +9
    In order not to multiply essences in excess of what is necessary, let us make an assumption smile that China will take advantage of such a concentration of US forces and assets on the Russian Federation and will promptly create an offensive grouping to occupy Taiwan.

    This will prevent the United States and its allies from achieving the described concentration of forces. The factor of China is a new variable compared to the times of the confrontation between the USSR and the United States. The critical weakening of Russia is dangerous for China, because it will be next, with all its desire to sit and wait for the corpse of the enemy floating on the river.

    On the whole, the article made me happy with its prudence, so long lost in numerous opuses about urapatriotism and its disappearance. This level of balanced intellectual analysis is a rarity these days. Thank you!
    1. Dante Alighieri
      Dante Alighieri 3 June 2021 06: 19
      +11
      I would not unconditionally believe in the goodwill of our Chinese "friends". Asians are very pragmatic and rational people. Today, when we sell everything and everything to them at bargain prices, and we ourselves consume tons of products of their production and processing, the situation when China can benefit from a military defeat for Russia looks at least ridiculous, but mostly fantastic. However, if an elite comes to power in the Kremlin, aimed not at indulging big capital, but at the development and prosperity of the country as a whole (and since we are discussing a hypothetical conflict between the Russian Federation and the United States, this has already happened, because the States will always find a way to negotiate), then in such a situation it may turn out that it will be "cheaper" for a Chinese comrade to betray his "unreliable" partner, especially if various buns are attached in exchange for this, ranging from Taiwan and ending with the annexation of the Russian Far East by Chinese troops ... It is clear that such "acquisitions" will greatly strengthen China itself, but the Western bloc will also remain in the black. But the confrontation with China itself on the part of the Americans would be more logical to try to transfer it to the stage of the Cold War, especially since the resource base of the same Arctic and the Russian north will be 100% in their zone of control, and the Chinese will no longer have to rely on it.

      All this, of course, is exclusively speculative reasoning. After all, it may well give up so that it will be even easier for the Chinese to come to terms with the conventionally nationally oriented Russian elite, and then the calculations I have cited will lose all meaning. There are too many unaccounted for factors. I will say one thing: in any case, it is necessary to try to be the master of your own destiny, minimizing the impact of the 2nd and 3rd forces on it, as much as possible, and not to rely on the favor of the Chinese, Turks and other subjects of the international political arena.
      1. Kalmar
        Kalmar 3 June 2021 11: 21
        +4
        Quote: Dante
        Today, when we sell them everything and everyone at bargain prices, and we ourselves consume tons of products of their production and processing, the situation when China can benefit from a military defeat for Russia looks at least ridiculous, but mostly fantastic.

        I would add that the share of Russia in Chinese exports and imports is only a few percent. The United States still remains its main economic partner, so even in the current conditions, the military defeat of Russia for China may be a perfectly acceptable price to pay for the implementation of some political ambitions.
        1. pin_code
          pin_code 4 June 2021 08: 06
          -1
          what Russia can supply to the United States, China a priori will not be able, just as it will not be able to have at least some Soviet technologies in the future. so for China, the death of Russia - the death of China - is not even discussed.
          1. Kalmar
            Kalmar 4 June 2021 09: 13
            0
            Quote: pin_code
            what Russia can supply to the United States, China a priori will not be able, just as it will not be able to have at least some Soviet technologies in the future

            And what hasn't China received from Soviet technologies yet? Thirty years have passed, after all. Only some types of aircraft engines come to mind; the rest of the Chinese are pretty good at doing it themselves. Then, do not forget that the USSR is not only Russia, but a number of other states, on whose territory there were also institutes, design bureaus and factories. And these states are now happily selling the Soviet legacy to everyone.
      2. V1er
        V1er 4 June 2021 18: 58
        0
        Okay. China will receive Taiwan and the Far East. Russia is destroyed. What's next? The Arctic will not be given to him, like Siberia. This area will be taken by the West. It will grow enormously, unlike China. Peace for 100 years is guaranteed as long as Russia is being plundered. Then a new foothold will be created on these lands. All the forces that held Russia back are no longer required, so everything can be sent to contain China. One is easier to hold back than two. China with any buns, sticks and hyushkas will receive an Asian super strong NATO + European NATO on the borders in DO. Where else will the remaining Russians be connected. This is a shot in the head. It is most beneficial for China to have a weak Russia, to which part of the attention and energy goes. And do not care about resources and territories, they can legally get them, and if the United States falls, then even more so. There will be no barriers.
    2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      3 June 2021 06: 49
      +1
      Quote: sot
      Thank you!

      And thank you for the kind words hi
    3. Boa kaa
      Boa kaa 3 June 2021 21: 00
      +2
      Quote: sot
      China will take advantage of this concentration of US forces and assets on the Russian Federation and will quickly create an offensive grouping to occupy Taiwan.

      Alas, it is not. am
      The thing is that the United States intends to deal with the Asia-Pacific region and China under it ...
      But the states entrusted Russia to NATO and Britain with its mallets.
      So, all the notes in the alliance have been handed out, the performers are seated in their places, we are waiting, with an overture ... which, most likely, will begin with an Independent or a Prayer with their irrepressible ambition ...
      But.
      1. pin_code
        pin_code 4 June 2021 08: 11
        0
        plus you, but disagree. Europe is not weak on its own, weak in general spirit, the unfinished USSR. there were eggs in the USSR, before Gorbachev, Europe will not follow Britain. it is a fact. lib the British LGBT will have to surpass themselves)))
        1. Boa kaa
          Boa kaa 4 June 2021 18: 31
          +1
          Quote: pin_code
          Europe won't follow Britain.

          Perhaps you are right, BUT !!!
          1. From time immemorial, the Englishwoman quietly crap and always tried not to fall under the distribution of "buns".
          2. The International Center for Decision Making (Bilderberg Club) is located in Foggy Albion. Its headquarters are in Bern, but not its brains.
          3. London has always shoved adventures on others, the United States in this sense is no exception.
          4. Theresa May, and behind her and Borys Johnson, did not withdraw the country from the EEC in order to bear all the hardships and hardships together with the Baltic limitrophes and idiots from the former socialist commonwealth who entered the united EUROPA. (Let Merkel and MACARON (Macron) do it. They needed freedom of decision.
          And in NATO, everything is more prosaic there: the United States is in command, the rest do. Now the States are leaving for the APR for a rendezvous with the Hunfuz, leaving behind their former owners. Everything is simple in my opinion.
          AHA.
      2. husband
        husband 7 June 2021 06: 43
        0
        The article simulates the confrontation between the combined forces of the US and NATO with Russia. And it is here that the fact of the existence of a strong China is important to divert part of the US forces to contain its ambitions towards Taiwan. It will not be possible to concentrate all AUG on Russia. And this is important from the point of view of the objectivity of modeling.

        And what about China's benefits in a weak or strong Russia? - Yes, they don't care. It is important for them to obtain raw materials by land and to have a strong opponent to US policy.
  6. Ros 56
    Ros 56 3 June 2021 06: 11
    +5
    You can discuss all these matters from morning until the second coming, but how it will actually happen, no one is given to know. PMV, well, no one imagined even in a bad dream, but take it and happen, and ......?
    1. pin_code
      pin_code 4 June 2021 08: 15
      0
      here I do not agree ... only needed an excuse ... it was found ... it does not matter who and when created it. it is important that H2 threw B2go. and if it had entered into an alliance with Germany, then most likely the French and the Britons did not dare to start a war, everything is simple ... and not just ... declare war on the French and wrote off all debts ...
  7. parusnik
    parusnik 3 June 2021 06: 22
    +2
    The United States did not dare to use nuclear weapons in either the Korean or Vietnamese conflicts, we did not use them either during the Soviet-Chinese crisis or in Afghanistan. The French did not use nuclear weapons in Algeria, the British in the conflict with Argentina.
    and the meaning of using it? Yes, the United States did not use nuclear weapons when it pressed on Grenada. smile But they could.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      3 June 2021 06: 42
      +6
      Quote: parusnik
      and the meaning of using it?

      Well, in Korea and Vietnam, the Americans, how to put it ... did not win :)
      1. antivirus
        antivirus 3 June 2021 09: 30
        +1
        and in the Far East we have no missiles without a special warhead for 1-1.5-2 thousand km ??? can I get Tokyo without AV?


        or everything is bad without a question


        ......................................................................
      2. dzvero
        dzvero 3 June 2021 09: 43
        0
        The legal field for the use of nuclear weapons is outlined in the NPT. But without "fences". Five (at that time) nuclear states pledged (the term is probably inaccurate, rather promised) not to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear weapons. Therefore, the United States did not use nuclear weapons in Vietnam. But then it started ... someone (the British) said that they would use it against a coalition that includes a nuclear state, someone (the French) that would use tactical nuclear weapons in the event of a terrorist threat against control centers ... About the use of nuclear weapons in the open sea of ​​information did not meet. Perhaps this topic is left to the mercy of the command on the spot as part of the instructions.
  8. Doccor18
    Doccor18 3 June 2021 07: 04
    +9
    1. The loss of the Kuril Islands will have reputational losses for the country's leadership much greater than a limited nuclear strike on the "samurai", and at the same time will prove the inflexibility of the Russian government ...
    2. What is the point of collecting 5-6 AUG in 3 AUG? The more AUG, the more difficult it is to keep track of them, the more difficult it is to destroy them ...
    And one modern AUG has enough manpower and resources to "twist things up" ...
    1. Kalmar
      Kalmar 3 June 2021 11: 31
      +4
      Quote: Doccor18
      The loss of the Kuril Islands will have much more reputational losses for the country's leadership than a limited nuclear strike against the "samurai"

      It is largely a matter of presenting material to the public.

      For example, launch a stream of materials on all controlled media about how hard it is to live in the Kuril Islands, how expensive it is to maintain infrastructure, and so on. A little good old propaganda, and now the electorate is sure that the loss of the Kuriles is not a loss, but a clever throwing off of a suitcase without a handle to stupid Japs. Another HPP, in general. And the Japanese, if they show a little instinct, can even play along: pay some reparations, for example. The leadership of the Russian Federation conditionally saves face, signs all official papers, everyone is more or less satisfied.

      Quote: Doccor18
      What is the point of collecting 5-6 AUG in 3 AUG? The more AUG, the more difficult it is to keep track of them, the more difficult it is to destroy them ...

      I think ADR is an organizational unit. Those. no one demands that its constituent AUG gather in one dense crowd; here we are rather talking about the joint actions of a pair of AUG to solve one problem.
      1. pin_code
        pin_code 4 June 2021 08: 19
        0
        according to your scenario, the Kuril Islands are one way ... but quite realistic ... +
  9. tralflot1832
    tralflot1832 3 June 2021 07: 18
    0
    There is a simple truth: The winners are not judged! The Americans, despite the overwhelming power of the Navy, are only held back by our ground strategic nuclear forces. They do not guarantee a 100% guarantee of intercepting our retaliatory strike. Even when conducting sea-based missile defense exercises, in "greenhouse" conditions they have failures. Our ground strategic nuclear forces are practically at the same latitude so that we have time to react. Before the conflict, the Americans need to withdraw the fleet to the concentration areas, and in our age of electronic intelligence this is very problematic. Serving in the GSVG as a radio operator, it was noticeable that NATO had some kind of movement , radio traffic increased several times from their side, as well as from ours, the entire broadcast was occupied by the "streams" side, but also on the decision-making centers. What Patrushev confirmed the other day, this is not a signal, this is a ringing of the bells. So we sleep peacefully, work hard, raise children and grandchildren. We have someone to protectand it is not known what will appear in the near future, so that our life in military terms becomes calmer. Zircon is on the way, so many copies of Poseidon have already been broken, the principle of its application is not clear. So the regional conflict with us, in a few hours, will develop into global. No one and never will tell us what the chiefs of staff of Russia and the United States are talking about, this is who the fate of the world rests on. To the same Bzezhinsky, the chief of staff of the United States, he told us even earlier how, when and how he can shake ICBMs around the United States. the main reason: it's just that the missiles won't fly, you need a reason.
    1. Grits
      Grits 3 June 2021 09: 59
      -8
      Quote: tralflot1832
      About Poseidon, so many copies have already been broken, the principle of its application is not clear to myself.

      What's not clear here? If we all "go to heaven", and the "partners" managed not to "just die" for the most part, but even to survive a little, then it is not yet known who is more fortunate. If they miraculously drown our RPKS, their missiles hit our silos, and ours, in turn, come under fire from the vaunted American missile defense system, then the Posedon will certainly reach their shores without hindrance. And having safely exploded in bases and harbors, near the embankments of the largest cities, with their extensive (specially planned) radioactive contamination, the entire coast will be subjected to the most severe desertification of all living things. To a state of vomit. Where to stay for more than 10 minutes is like death. Thus, the "winners" are turning into the aborigines of an untouchable and inaccessible island, slowly dying in the deserts of Nevada and in the Colorado Mountains. And stories to children about the sea will be scary bedtime stories.
      Revenge will be terrible even after our death.
      1. tralflot1832
        tralflot1832 3 June 2021 10: 33
        0
        When Sakharov offered his miracle torpedo, the military refused. Having counted only 6 -10 targets. Now nothing has changed, try to search for the wave height in an underwater nuclear explosion. I was disappointed. The height of the wave decreases exponentially. Poseidon was not created for these purposes, it is my personal opinion.
        1. Grits
          Grits 3 June 2021 15: 27
          -4
          Quote: tralflot1832
          Now nothing has changed, try searching for the wave height in an underwater nuclear explosion. I was disappointed. The wave height decreases exponentially. Poseidon was not created for these purposes, this is my personal opinion.

          Everything is correct. Poseidon is not to cause a wave that sweeps away everything on the coast. It was created to infect the entire coast with the wonderful radioactivity "beating" in the ears. So that no one can come close to any ship.
        2. Silhouette
          Silhouette 3 June 2021 20: 52
          0
          A bit wrong. Sakharov offered to put his invention into a torpedo because there were simply no other carriers due to the dimensions of the product. It didn't fit on a plane, and you couldn't deliver it by train to the United States. So the idea of ​​a submarine arose. But there were no such boats, and it is ineffective to design and build a nuclear submarine for one torpedo and one task. Sakharov offered to blow up his brainchild in the harbor of New York. The Navy then did not understand why to destroy skyscrapers, if there are other, more important goals and refused. At that time, we still did not know anything about the hydrology of the adjacent zone. Now we know. It is unique in its capabilities in terms of military use. And the dimensions of the warhead have since been greatly reduced. That's when the idea of ​​Poseidon came about. A good idea, by the way. This is not Reagan's cinematic "Star Wars", but the promised asymmetric response to them.
          1. timokhin-aa
            timokhin-aa 8 June 2021 13: 03
            0
            You write as if you know something about "Poseidon". Complete nonsense.
            1. Silhouette
              Silhouette 8 June 2021 18: 06
              -1
              I know something. This topic did not end on Sakharov.
      2. Cherry Nine
        Cherry Nine 3 June 2021 13: 33
        +4
        Quote: Gritsa
        will surely reach their shores without hindrance

        Why would you?
        Poseidon's explosion at sea, even in view of the coast, will cause minimal damage, given the power of the device. The underwater nature of the explosion itself neutralizes most of the energy, plus most of the 360-degree area of ​​impact is the sea.

        An explosion in a harbor inside an urbanized zone is more dangerous, but such places can be counted on the fingers of one hand, and it is not difficult to cover all of them with an ultimatum PLO.
    2. pin_code
      pin_code 4 June 2021 08: 30
      0
      I do not believe the president ... for several reasons ... 1. elections can only be held with 50% voter turnout. 2. there must be a column - AGAINST ALL, 3. observers must be uninterested persons, non-partisans. , but we have the opposite ... in fact, the elections are not legitimate. it is a fact. I will not go into details, everyone knows everything. I’ll keep quiet about the primaries ...
  10. nikvic46
    nikvic46 3 June 2021 07: 45
    +6
    Thanks to the author for the work. As for Brzezinski, he, like no one else, knew about the defensive policy of the USSR. In addition, not a single Soviet politician made statements about a premature nuclear strike. We understood that for the opponent to be calm, we had to be calm ourselves. Everything happened, but we sacredly observed this.
  11. Cucumbers
    Cucumbers 3 June 2021 07: 47
    +3
    Back to the past article. At first I thought that we were talking about the Second World War. There will certainly not be such a war. About artillery preparation in the form of massive cyberattacks to destabilize the situation is not said. While the country is giving away its resources for nothing, why fight it. Well, so as not to rock the boat, do not take it into his head - biological laboratories around the perimeter
    1. pin_code
      pin_code 4 June 2021 08: 36
      0
      enlighten us in your article, we will read and write comments. but about biolaboratories ... not always a carnival for a cat, you can run into anthrax ...
  12. Daniil Konovalenko
    Daniil Konovalenko 3 June 2021 08: 13
    +2
    And what are the goals now pursued by the "instigators" of the Third World War? 30 years ago this was understandable. Destruction of the socialist bloc and press to the nail those countries that supported the countries of the socialist camp. Probably, as one of the authors of VO - Samsonov, writes, the destruction of Russian-Soviet civilization? And the goal of Russia? So far, only indignation is seen that Russia was thrown by its Western partners. And those, in turn, are outraged by the fact that they were thrown by Russia. And what kind of friendship was from the 90s to the Munich speech in 2007. And so far, the enemies are not identified by the political leadership (except for terrorists). We have partners, partners, all around there are partners who do not understand us, and we, in turn, do not understand them.
    1. EvilLion
      EvilLion 3 June 2021 08: 29
      +2
      Until 22.06.1941/XNUMX/XNUMX, Adol'fych was also a partner who, if necessary, would be accepted with all diplomatic etiquette, and with whom all countries of the world were negotiating.
    2. pin_code
      pin_code 4 June 2021 08: 46
      +1
      so friendship never existed ... there were traitors Gorbachev, Yakovlev, Yeltsin, etc. so their slogans are not friendship ... Russia is Russia, and they (west), so they stayed. yesterday in the bus, the controllers told me that validators have been working in Europe for a long time ... and we need to look up to them. but I do not agree ... we should not be equal to them ... have cut in total more than 1000 jobs in Novokuznetsk, PITERAVTO became the monopoly carrier. question ... where were the 20 billion rubles spent ??? on transport reform ??? who got them? and on what rights? and THIS question could be analyzed by Comrade Samsonov. and I will help you as much as I can if they do not sit down))
  13. Bez 310
    Bez 310 3 June 2021 08: 26
    +3
    I read the article and thought about it ...
    What and why is this article? I think it's high time to stop talking about some "local conflicts", this is not an option for our Navy.
    It is no longer a secret for more or less informed readers that the Russian Navy cannot withstand the US and NATO Navy with conventional weapons, and the only way to survive in a war at sea is nuclear weapons. But here lies the ambush - will our leadership decide to use it, or, as always, will resolutely "express deep indignation"?
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      3 June 2021 11: 06
      +3
      Good day!
      Quote: Bez 310
      What and why is this article?

      I am thinking about what kind of fleet we need :) And its size / composition can be determined only from the tasks that it needs to solve. So I'm trying to set the conditions for such tasks for the Federation Council.
      Quote: Bez 310
      It is no longer a secret for more or less informed readers that the Russian Navy cannot withstand the US and NATO Navy with conventional weapons, and the only way to survive in a war at sea is nuclear weapons.

      I agree, but the problem is that today we can hardly even be able to use nuclear weapons. It's not a panacea after all
    2. pin_code
      pin_code 4 June 2021 08: 48
      +1
      I put a minus ... the management will not dare - it will fade and wish you good luck, at best ..
  14. EvilLion
    EvilLion 3 June 2021 08: 27
    +1
    Nuclear weapons will be used. I said this 100 times and I will repeat it again, any sufficiently serious aggression against Russia, the repulsion of which will be associated with significant losses, will immediately raise questions from the Russian population, why the hell has a nuclear club been devouring huge resources for decades, and at a time when its use will allow us to win the war, saving thousands of lives of our soldiers, it turns out to be useless, because someone abroad will be upset about it.

    Russia did not give any obligations on non-use of nuclear weapons in case of aggression against itself. And we are not obliged to wait for enemy tanks near Moscow.

    Aircraft carriers are not needed. They just don't need it. They and the USSR were not clear why they were needed, purely to fight in the Atlantic for the sake of a fight.
  15. smaug78
    smaug78 3 June 2021 08: 50
    -1
    And what should the leadership of the Russian Federation do if the Japanese attack and we lose the "battle for the Kuriles" using conventional weapons
    Will the Japanese decide to fight alone? A very dubious assumption. And so, thanks for the article!
    1. Grits
      Grits 3 June 2021 10: 07
      +5
      Quote: smaug78
      And what should the leadership of the Russian Federation do if the Japanese attack and we lose the "battle for the Kuriles" using conventional weapons


      In Japan, it is not necessary to use nuclear weapons. It itself is one big nuclear weapon.
      The number of conventional cruise missiles (better than hypersonic ones) a little more than the number of nuclear power plants will do the trick. And chaos and complete lack of life support will put an end to the state called Japan.

      1. smaug78
        smaug78 3 June 2021 11: 12
        -4
        Dear, you are a little mistaken ...
        1. Grits
          Grits 3 June 2021 15: 30
          -1
          Quote: smaug78
          Dear, you are a little mistaken ...

          In what
          1. smaug78
            smaug78 4 June 2021 09: 19
            -2
            Will the Japanese decide to fight alone? A very dubious assumption.
      2. ccsr
        ccsr 3 June 2021 13: 30
        +3
        Quote: Gritsa
        In Japan, it is not necessary to use nuclear weapons. It itself is one big nuclear weapon.

        Even tactical wearable nuclear charges, which can be used by the MTR or the underwater special forces of the Navy against nuclear power plants, will make the Japanese government ponder - they really sit on a powder keg and know very well about it. Moreover, almost all of Japan's economic and human potential is concentrated in three large metropolitan areas, and any sabotage there will lead to disaster. And the author of the article seriously tells us how the samurai will seize our islands - I don't even know where he gets his visions from, only from the astral plane.
        1. Per se.
          Per se. 3 June 2021 14: 59
          0
          Quote: ccsr
          Even tactical wearable nuclear warheads
          You are an intelligent person, why do you understand the role of the fleet so one-sidedly? Border troops, for example, were not created for war; it takes a lot of money to protect the land and sea borders. All this is not for the victory in the war, but for the security of the state itself. The role of the fleet is also there.

          There will be no grandiose naval battles, but the role of the fleet, not only in hostilities, in modern realities, is the prevention of a major war, even more important than victory in a nuclear conflict (this will not even be a Pyrrhic victory, but much worse). In addition, the prelaunch period, cover and deployment are also extremely important tasks for the fleet. Stopping problems, local conflicts, deterring, providing a military demonstration in political pressure, these are also all the tasks of the fleet. And only a full-fledged fleet, and not a fleet castrated to the littoral zone, can solve these problems well.

          Otherwise, it is possible to lose territory in the same way as Serbia lost Kosovo, or our generous democrats gave up Damansky and other territories, soaked in the blood of our border guards, in a one-sided "demarcation". Give me a finger, they'll bite off your hand. The fleet is always in business, it is one of the main instruments of international politics. We do not need the same number of destroyers as the United States, we do not need to build more of them, just as we do not need more aircraft carriers than the United States, but only with aircraft carriers will the fleet receive its aviation anywhere in the world ocean, and the entire nuclear force will stand behind such a grouping. the power of the country.

          Not all problems can be solved with missiles alone; the navy and aviation are needed, they are needed in those volumes that ensure the security of Russia and its national interests.

          As for wearable nuclear charges, in general, with this approach, it is possible to mine only your own nuclear power plants, plus nuclear warheads, and, to threaten to blow everything up, one big Armageddon will come to the whole world, so it will be, - "we, as martyrs, will go to heaven, and they'll just die. " According to this logic, not only aircraft carriers, the fleet itself, but the army in general is not needed. Without the fleet, the chances of getting a big war are much greater, as well as losing in political blackmail, where it is unlikely that any power will decide on the Apocalypse without other levers of political confrontation. Such "savings" on a full-fledged fleet are more expensive for themselves, which is why our Anglo-Saxon "partners" are getting out of their way, under the ideological pressure that Russia does not need aircraft carriers and, ideally, a fleet in general. It’s easier to overlay and seal us on all sides. Do not be their voluntary or involuntary adept, you need to save on that.
          1. ccsr
            ccsr 3 June 2021 19: 36
            0
            Quote: Per se.
            And only a full-fledged fleet, and not a fleet castrated to the littoral zone, can solve these problems well.

            This is all theory, but practice says that once again we will be left without pants if we bother with the whole fleet - this is what we went through in the USSR. Therefore, we must improve only SSBNs, and everything else on a leftover principle.
            Moreover, you yourself pointed it out:
            Quote: Per se.
            There will be no grandiose naval battles, but the role of the fleet is not only in hostilities, in modern realities, the prevention of a big war is even more important, than victory in a nuclear collision (this will not even be a Pyrrhic victory, but much worse).

            This means that we must improve our Strategic Missile Forces for prevention and we will be happy.

            Quote: Per se.
            Otherwise, you can lose territory just like Serbia lost Kosovo,

            This example is incorrect - Serbia is not a nuclear country, unlike North Korea, that is why they did not reckon with it. Such a trick will not work with us - this is unambiguous.
            Quote: Per se.
            As for wearable nuclear charges, it is generally possible, with this approach, to mine only your own nuclear power plants, plus nuclear warheads, and, to threaten to blow everything up, one big Armageddon will come to the whole world,

            We have never prepared for such a scenario and there will be no such scenario in the future - I am sure of that.
            Quote: Per se.
            Such "savings" in a full-fledged fleet is more expensive for itself,

            I'm afraid that you underestimate the cost-effectiveness of the naval component of the strategic nuclear forces, which is why you assume that the fleet is not too much of a burden on our budget. I assure you, this is not at all the case, which is why they are abandoning aircraft carriers and missile cruisers - too much money is spent, and this, with great vulnerability, does not correspond to our strategy in the first half of the 21st century.
            Quote: Per se.
            Do not be their voluntary or involuntary adept, you need to save on that.

            I am not an adherent of anyone - I have my own opinion, and believe me, it was not formed on journalistic articles. But what is the armament program, and what funds were spent on different types of armed forces, I have known since Soviet times, and what is characteristic, the structure of these costs has not changed. So I can imagine what a "full-fledged fleet" will cost us if we take for the truth some of the articles of journalists, and not the opinion of professionals.
            1. Per se.
              Per se. 4 June 2021 06: 54
              0
              Quote: ccsr
              But what is the armament program, and what funds were spent on different types of armed forces, I have known since Soviet times, and what is characteristic, the structure of these costs has not changed. So I can imagine what a "full-fledged fleet" will cost us
              Your opinion is interesting to me, that's why I turned to you in the comments. I just want to emphasize, speaking of a full-fledged fleet, that this is not an assertion of some kind of parity "wall to wall", especially against the United States, NATO countries and Japan together. Rather, it can be represented as a kind of "chessboard" on which we should have not only "littoral pawns", but also "heavy pieces" of the oceanic zone. With this it is possible to solve all problems at sea. To project these "figures and pawns" of our fleet, here we will have to on various "boards" of the world ocean, where it does not matter how many aircraft carriers the United States and all of NATO have, "play our party", our naval group will be in a specific place, and under cover SSBNs, as well as the entire military power of the country. This way we will be able to solve our problems, defend national interests, and carry out containment.

              Speaking of savings, it was below - "Which is more expensive: an aircraft carrier or life", which understood the life of a child, collecting money for operations. You, like me, are from the USSR, then you did not collect money for your children on TV on TV. The problem of our fleet is in the system itself (and not only the fleet, but also sick children). Therefore, my understanding of the situation remains the same, it is not the navy that needs to be saved, and it is not the aircraft carriers (which, in fact, we do not have) are to blame for the funds stolen from the budgets and billions flowing to the West. Naturally, this is just my personal opinion. Good luck to you.
              1. ccsr
                ccsr 4 June 2021 12: 16
                0
                Quote: Per se.
                our naval group will be in a specific place, and under the cover of SSBNs, as well as the entire military power of the country.

                Here you are mistaken - SSBNs were not created for these purposes, and they do not carry any naval cover tasks, because they are part of our strategic nuclear forces, and they are assigned the tasks of a structure higher than the General Staff of the Navy. But the operational leadership is entrusted to the naval commanders, no one argues with this, and by the way they are fully responsible for the security and protection of SSBNs - at least that was the case in Soviet times.
                Quote: Per se.
                Speaking of savings, it was below - "Which is more expensive: an aircraft carrier or life", which understood the life of a child, collecting money for operations.

                I am not commenting on this, because this is pure rhetoric.
                Quote: Per se.
                Therefore, my understanding of the situation remains the same, it is not the navy that needs to be saved, and it is not the aircraft carriers (which, in fact, we do not have) are to blame for the funds stolen from the budgets and billions flowing to the West.

                I understand your idea, but the people renounced social justice in 1991, and capitalism in Russia has always been one of the most insatiable, which is why in 1917 the people rejected even the bourgeois government. The current oligarchs are no better than those who led to the collapse of the Russian Empire, and I am afraid that the current ones may repeat this. Will we return to the ideas of socialism? I strongly doubt this, although I do not exclude that in the course of evolutionary transformations we will return something to our society, including in the spiritual field.
                1. Per se.
                  Per se. 4 June 2021 12: 33
                  +1
                  Quote: ccsr
                  Here you are wrong - SSBNs were not created for these purposes
                  It was when the commander of the NATO formation made it clear to our lone ship that, they say, you will do it here alone, our commander answered him - "I have all the might of the Soviet Union behind me!" It took effect. Speaking about SSBNs, and the country's power in general, I meant it.
                  Will we return to the ideas of socialism?
                  Without this, most likely, it will simply not be possible for him to survive, and not only for us. One can at least hope and believe, as well as in the fact that mankind will someday really take its step on the moon, paying tribute to the American swindlers.
      3. pin_code
        pin_code 4 June 2021 08: 50
        0
        here the question is in the gut ... if Japan is thin, if it is fat ... it may not live.
  16. Glory1974
    Glory1974 3 June 2021 10: 20
    +2
    This is the main nuance of nuclear deterrence. It provides reliable protection only against total aggression. But if an aggressor country does not claim to destroy a nuclear power, but seeks to resolve some local issue in its favor, it may well attack, not believing that nuclear weapons will be used "for such an insignificant reason." There have already been precedents - both Damansky and Falklands. Theoretically, such a non-nuclear war "on a secondary matter" is possible even between the United States and the Russian Federation.

    For some reason, the article deals with nuclear weapons only on a strategic scale. From this point of view, everything seems to be correct. Nobody wants total war, nuclear deterrence works.
    But who decided that Russia would not use tactical nuclear weapons? This is in our defense doctrine. Moreover, our armed forces are sharpened on the use of tactical charges. Everyone understands that it is very expensive to maintain a huge army of the Soviet era, it is much cheaper to have a small army with nuclear weapons. The main thing is that you have the determination to give the order.
    And from a military point of view, no problems and no global consequences. There is no difference with what the transport with the Japanese marines moving to Shikotan will be drowned with, a conventional torpedo or with a special warhead.
    1. pin_code
      pin_code 4 June 2021 08: 52
      0
      the whole problem is resolved ...
  17. Jacket in stock
    Jacket in stock 3 June 2021 10: 31
    -4
    And I will not wonder whether our command will use nuclear weapons or not.
    I'm talking about the alignment of enemy forces by the author.
    Why did he confine himself to one Norwegian Sea?
    What will prevent the enemies from sailing with a hundred Tomogavks at the mouth of the Ob or Yenisei?
    The Germans sailed there.
    Along the Ob and along the Yenisei they will freely pass right up to Tomsk and Krasnoyarsk. And cut the country in half
    1. Grits
      Grits 3 June 2021 15: 38
      +1
      Quote: Jacket in stock
      What will prevent the enemies from sailing with a hundred Tomogavks at the mouth of the Ob or Yenisei?
      The Germans sailed there.
      Along the Ob and along the Yenisei they will freely pass right up to Tomsk and Krasnoyarsk. And cut the country in half

      In winter, ice gets in the way. In the summer - our fleet and aviation (during the Second World War, we did not have such a luxury). As for the passage along the Ob, or the Yenisei - and with what ships can the enemies accomplish this? Ticonderogs and Arleigh Burkami?
    2. pin_code
      pin_code 4 June 2021 08: 56
      0
      Sew a hood to your jacket. The Germans sailed for a long time and they would not chew on them, for example, the Su-34 that had been airlifted in advance from Kaliningrad or Primorye. It's just that times have changed.
  18. Azimuth
    Azimuth 3 June 2021 11: 08
    0
    Both options doom the Russian Federation to a world that will be worse than the pre-war one, that is, we will lose in any case. We will lose despite our entire nuclear arsenal. Yes, by using nuclear weapons in such a situation, we can make it so that for the Japanese things will end much worse than for us. But it won't make it easier for us.
    We will not lose if the enemy, having attacked our sovereign and territory, that is, within the internationally recognized borders, receives a nuclear strike in response. Regardless of what is the area of ​​the territory that the enemy tries to occupy and regardless of the area of ​​the enemy's country, the size of its economy and the size of the armed forces.
    There is a fact - aggression against the Russian Federation, and what is pursued in the end, the capture of only Moscow, for example, or only a couple of islands in the Kuril ridge, or all of Siberia, or only partially the Far East - DOES NOT MATTER.
    The author, imagine I am the United States and present you with an ultimatum to leave Chukotka, stating that I will fight only with conventional weapons and will go beyond Chukotka
    1. The comment was deleted.
  19. Mikhail3
    Mikhail3 3 June 2021 11: 21
    -2
    Solving this problem will allow us to systematically thwart attempts to detect and track our SSBNs.
    Alas. As it was finally openly acknowledged in a recently published article on the resource, this problem is one hundred percent solved by analyzing the video of the ocean surface. The era when the water column hid submarines is over. It was all over. In order to find and cover the boat at any moment of time, you need an unkempt botanist anywhere in the country, a server for him as a working tool and a satellite with a high-resolution camera.
    The only thing that boats can now help in defense is firing from their tervods, which reduces the flight time. However, the concept of protection in a nuclear conflict is very fragile. Such a conflict should begin with the destruction of enemy boats. Since their position is known, the task is not difficult.
    Offensively - boats can shoot from their normal route, and nothing can be done about it. Have at least a thousand aircraft carriers, but it is impossible to prevent the enemy from firing out from under the water. The forces of the fleet can destroy the submarine later, but this will do nothing, because there will be only one nuclear war, with a maximum of two volleys of nuclear weapons in it. And it is much more reasonable to destroy boats with the help of appropriately modified hypersonic missiles. We'll have to train them to slow down).
    So - the navy cannot solve any problems in a modern nuclear war. Can only help a little or hinder a little. It's all.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      3 June 2021 12: 03
      +2
      Quote: Mikhail3
      Alas. As it was finally openly acknowledged in a recently published article on the resource, this problem is one hundred percent solved by analyzing the video of the ocean surface.

      Doesn't dare. "Non-traditional" perfectly complements other methods of detecting submarines, but not absolute.
      Quote: Mikhail3
      It was all over. In order to find and cover the boat at any moment of time, you need an unkempt botanist anywhere in the country, a server for him as a working tool and a satellite with a high-resolution camera.

      no :)))) For this, at least, you still need a means of destroying the boat. And they can only act in our areas of the enemy MAPL. Having found it, we can prevent SSBN tracking, that is, if you were even right, the situation for an unkempt botanist would be reduced to "an eye sees, but a tooth doesn’t."
      1. Mikhail3
        Mikhail3 3 June 2021 14: 07
        -1
        Yes) The means of destroying the boat will be either a hypersonic missile, supplemented by a diving part, or an American nuclear engine, extremely dirty, but allowing the flying platform to hang over the sea for days, moving anywhere within the oceans. Generally speaking, as I understand it, there is still no effective aviation platform for some air-to-depth missiles solely because the aviators do not dare to move the powerful maritime lobby away from the appropriations. And not because it is impossible or ineffective.
        However, it should be borne in mind that the comfortable and profitable time of the confrontation "USSR-West" is over. It was in those blissful times that it was possible to milk budgets without worrying about the REAL war at all. All this confrontation from the West was a fun game and exhausting the USSR economy.
        Unfortunately, there is no more ideological confrontation. And economically we are in an absolute, perfect, complete impasse. Capitalism exhausted itself entirely and completely, and turned out to be too stupid to understand that it was the USSR that kept the remnants of life in it. Now what? Development is no longer possible. There is nowhere to develop, capitalism is dead.
        And since the relatively peaceful attempt to move from a spontaneous dump to the management of civilization on the basis of science and reason has failed, now the decision will be capitalist. That is, one hell war, or a series of such wars. For cannibals, there is only one way out - cannibalism. It is necessary to destroy at least half of the world's population and 70 percent of all types of property. Then capitalism can be restarted.
        Alas, we betrayed the USSR and destroyed it with our own hands. Thus, we betrayed not only ourselves, but all of humanity. And now the War. Only War. In which there is no place for the robbery of the budget for the construction of useless iron troughs, and the destruction of sailors by the thousands in order for the owners of the shipyards to increase the stock of zeroes in the computer on their accounts. We will not be able to refuse this, it will no longer be just a betrayal of humanity, but also national suicide. For the sake of zeroes ...
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          3 June 2021 14: 22
          0
          Quote: Mikhail3
          Yes) The means of destroying the boat will be either a hypersonic missile, supplemented by a diving part,

          Targeting from space according to non-traditional data is fantastic. Non-tradition requires clarification of the position of the submarine
          Quote: Mikhail3
          Generally speaking, as I understand it, there is still no effective aviation platform for some air-to-depth missiles solely because the aviators do not dare to move the powerful maritime lobby away from the appropriations. And not because it is impossible or ineffective.

          For an PLO aircraft / helicopter, there is no great need for a PLUR - it can also drop conventional torpedoes
          Quote: Mikhail3
          And economically we are in an absolute, perfect, complete impasse.

          Who can argue? :)
          1. Mikhail3
            Mikhail3 3 June 2021 14: 38
            0
            And what is the fantasy?) Satellite positioning with an accuracy of a centimeter is in doubt? Or the ability to decipher the position of the boat from the hydraulic picture? In general, analyzing the video of the water flow is no longer a task) And anyway, launching several dozen hypersonic missiles to cover an entire area is much cheaper than even one day of operating an aircraft carrier. The costs are simply incomparable, especially since there is no risk of drowning several thousand sailors for the opportunity to cross the ocean.
            The aircraft / helicopters used today are carefully sharpened so that they cannot be used without aircraft carriers / close coastal airfields. Not because it is important from a military point of view, from her it is precisely the most dangerous idiocy, but because it is terrible to deprive the owners of shipyards of income. Otherwise, they can deprive their heads in return. The fact that such brilliant military doctrines will have to pay with thousands of sailors' lives does not in the least excite the capitalists.
            1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              3 June 2021 14: 46
              0
              Quote: Mikhail3
              And what is the fantasy?) Satellite positioning with an accuracy of a centimeter is in doubt?

              Firstly, such positioning is impossible, and secondly, today there are no means that could issue a control center for a rocket instantly. Existing satellite system does not provide immediate response times
              Quote: Mikhail3
              In general, analyzing the video of the water flow is no longer a task) And anyway, launching several dozen hypersonic missiles to cover an entire area is much cheaper than even one day of operating an aircraft carrier.

              Excuse me, but the aircraft carrier has something to do with it? :))) We are discussing the destruction of SSBNs. You are trying to replace multipurpose nuclear submarines with hypersonic PLURs. Suddenly - an aircraft carrier :))))
              1. Mikhail3
                Mikhail3 3 June 2021 15: 51
                0
                Firstly, such positioning exists, although an accuracy of meters is enough to hit the boat. Secondly, the rocket does not need an instant command control. This is not a game. We pinpoint the boat, calculate its course, speed and depth. We send a rocket to the place where the boat will arrive after the predicted arrival time. To enter the aquatic environment without destroying the hull, the rocket will have to slow down. At this moment, it can be adjusted according to the data continuously coming to us.
                We are discussing the tasks of the fleet in a nuclear conflict. And we're trying to figure out how the fleet works. Either we will hit the boat from the shore with a rocket, or we will keep AUG across all oceans, from which aircraft / helicopters with torpedoes will start. So the aircraft carrier is not suddenly) Try to consider the problem comprehensively.
                1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                  3 June 2021 16: 45
                  0
                  Quote: Mikhail3
                  Firstly, such positioning exists, although an accuracy of meters is enough to hit the boat.

                  The accuracy "in meters" is impossible here in principle. There, at best, hundreds of meters will be discussed. Moreover, a similar result can be achieved only in certain resolutions that narrow the search area. This can be done by an aircraft with good AFAR, or by a specialized satellite, to which someone will report the position of the boat with an accuracy of tens of kilometers. But there is no equipment that would allow viewing the ocean 24/7 in space.
                  Quote: Mikhail3
                  Either we will hit the boat from the shore with a rocket, or we will keep AUG across all oceans, from which aircraft / helicopters with torpedoes will start.

                  I totally disagree. And missiles from the coast can not do anything, and in the search for enemy MAPLs, you can do without an aircraft carrier
                  1. Mikhail3
                    Mikhail3 4 June 2021 09: 01
                    0
                    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                    Accuracy "in meters" is impossible here in principle

                    In order not to argue on this topic, I wrote that it is possible to cover a significant area with missiles, and still it will be immeasurably cheaper than using ships. Cheaper and faster. It is with rockets, and it is from the shore that everything can be done much better than from the ship, since finding and drowning a ship is incomparably easier, simpler and cheaper than a coastal installation, especially a mobile one.
                    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                      4 June 2021 09: 16
                      -2
                      Quote: Mikhail3
                      In order not to argue on this topic, I wrote that it is possible to cover a significant area with missiles, and still it will be immeasurably cheaper than using ships. Cheaper and faster

                      Much more expensive.
                    2. Mikhail3
                      Mikhail3 4 June 2021 09: 17
                      0
                      By the way. There is a way to refine the binding to the GPS level without too many problems. I will not explain who needs it, I think he knows, and who doesn’t need it, he don’t need it)
            2. Barberry25
              Barberry25 3 June 2021 18: 53
              0
              lol And in the USSR there were "incomes of shipyard owners"? And yes, tell me, what helicopters will be able to operate at 3 km without refueling with constant hovering?
              1. Mikhail3
                Mikhail3 4 June 2021 09: 05
                -1
                Yes. what else. It's just that these people got what they wanted, not with money. Since the idea underlying the construction of the USSR was successfully perverted by the elite, people rushed upward to get "theirs" (and in fact, someone else's, alas) directly by the power. You cannot buy a cool car, but you can have a luxurious office (the director of Zvezdochka is Chaika or even Mers), you cannot have your own luxurious house, but you can have a magnificent official dacha, etc. Alas. Helicopters are launched from aircraft carriers. Which must be uncounted, unmeasured.
                1. Barberry25
                  Barberry25 4 June 2021 14: 55
                  0
                  wink Well, to ensure the deployment of missile carriers, there is a simple solution - an PLO cruiser ... we take an enlarged BDK-UDC and based on it 12-16 PLO helicopters ... For defense, you can put a 76 mm cannon, a pair of shells and Packets ... well, on the extreme with a couple of containers with rocket-torpedoes are necessary ... everything, we close the area of ​​300 km ... they build up quickly, because there is nothing complicated there and should not be, we take the BDK / UDC as a basis ... As long as you can use the converted Ivan Grens with 4-6 helicopters on board
                  1. Mikhail3
                    Mikhail3 4 June 2021 16: 24
                    0
                    Of course there is, of course. The modern navy is a cool and varied outfit. As dreadnoughts used to be. Do you remember the story? The ships were perfect, weren't they? But technology and science are completely merciless. I barely managed to follow them, and no spears, even the best ones, would help against the machine gun. Whoever was the first to figure out to take on the latest achievements won. And it doesn't work out otherwise
          2. pin_code
            pin_code 4 June 2021 09: 03
            0
            let them believe in fiction. adherents of non-existent PLO aviation and other things are easier to believe than in reality ..
  20. Knell wardenheart
    Knell wardenheart 3 June 2021 11: 23
    +3
    Abroad, the Russian Federation is no longer perceived as a superpower

    Because "Superpower" (tm) is not a registered trademark of dumplings, but a statement of changes in the dynamics of the capabilities of a particular country. With how painfully we give birth to every major military construction (except perhaps the nuclear submarine) and with how things are with us in a wide range of products based on modern technologies, and with the state of our economy and our standard of living / population growth dynamics, and even so sour indicator as its quantity - we are no longer a "superpower", we are halfway to a regional power.

    Therefore, I cannot rule out a situation in which the Russian leadership would prefer to accept the loss of the Kuril Islands, but not to use nuclear weapons.

    Unfortunately, a very true and sad doubt ..
    History shows that the Japanese attack in 2 cases - a sharp qualitative incomparability of the enemy's forces with their forces and / or the ability on their part to conduct a kind of blitz operation with the conclusion of an analogue of peace in the foreseeable future.
    Considering that there is no such cardinally sharp incomparability of forces at the moment (although the alignment is not on our side, of course), their planning will probably again proceed from the blitz operation option, since every military school is characterized by dull repetitive views of things. To counteract this model, it is enough for us to make it clear to the Japanese that there will be no "short" war, that there will be an Iranian-Iraqi war, that is, that their wet dreams of repeating our shame at the beginning of the 20th century are an illusion.
    1. Andylw
      Andylw 3 June 2021 13: 16
      -3
      there is no such cardinally sharp incomparability of forces at the moment

      There!
      and it is sharp
      it can't be sharper
      Japan is orders of magnitude stronger in the Far East
      1. Knell wardenheart
        Knell wardenheart 3 June 2021 13: 46
        +1
        I specifically specified about the "sharp" - when Japan attacked China in 1937 - training, armament, the state of the fleet-aviation, the level of com. composition - all this was completely incomparable, which pushed the Japanese into protracted hostilities. They understood that the qualitative damage to their forces would not be covered by the invasion and other costs due to occupation and control. In our case, we have modern cruise missiles, coastal complexes, submarines, aviation and a range of modern missiles and target designation devices for them (theoretically) of different levels. We also have long-range strategic aviation, and it happens that they fly out to rattle. Accordingly, although the state and dynamics of development of our fleet and, probably, aviation in this direction are unsatisfactory, the complex of our means and the remoteness of industrial production from the areas attainable by Japanese means do not allow them to unequivocally consider (in my opinion) their superiority sufficient for an almost gratuitous operation. ... After Pearl Harbor, the Japanese realized that a large country in which they cannot go through like a knife through butter and break its industrial production - in the future, the conflict will put them on both blades, no matter how they inflict sudden losses and no matter how strategic dominance at the beginning no conflict.
        In the case of the prospect of a prolonged conflict (and not a blitz operation), I believe that the United States will turn its back on Japan under one pretext or another, because China will intervene in a more or less prolonged conflict, and the redistribution of forces under such alignments in Asia will require a weakening of influence in other regions on indefinite term.
        So the deep involvement of the United States in such a conflict (if it stretches over time) is doubtful, and the Japanese, who have no other significant allies in the region, should also understand this. So, in my opinion, from the point of view of Japan, sufficient conditions for an attack on the Kuril Islands should be a high probability of our political inability to get involved in a medium-long-term confrontation. They can overwhelm lesser-equal forces - we cannot compete with their economy and its ability to quickly produce what we have been producing for years. But its ability to act for such a long time in conflict conditions is questionable, the density of critical objects on the islands is quite large, all this is achievable by our means - they all understand this, one could even say that this is their phobia)
        1. Andylw
          Andylw 3 June 2021 13: 54
          -2
          it is very sad that you do not know the real balance of power in the Far East (although there is data from open sources)
          The Japanese Navy surpasses the Pacific Fleet by orders of magnitude and numerically and qualitatively, a similar situation in aviation, flat, drone
          already now Japan has all the possibilities for such a gratuitous operation
          we have nothing to answer to DV
          the situation is worse than that of China in 1937
          1. Knell wardenheart
            Knell wardenheart 3 June 2021 13: 57
            0
            Well, you did not catch my idea about the complex superiority of us in a long-term confrontation, alas and ah. But the Japanese can catch it, and that would be very beneficial to us.
            1. Andylw
              Andylw 3 June 2021 14: 04
              -2
              long-term confrontation is beyond the reach of Russia, first of all
              it's strange that you don't understand this
              our enemies are not only Japan in the Far East
              enemies along the entire perimeter - the Caucasus, the Black Sea, Ukraine, NATO in the Baltic and the North, Poland, and even Syria.
          2. Knell wardenheart
            Knell wardenheart 3 June 2021 13: 59
            0
            Although I agree with you, I believe that the Pacific TVD is the biggest headache for us right now in terms of real security.
      2. Barberry25
        Barberry25 3 June 2021 17: 32
        +1
        They will be able to capture the islands even tomorrow, but they are unlikely to hold them ..
        1. Andylw
          Andylw 3 June 2021 17: 33
          -2
          what's the problem to keep?
          how to win them back?
          1. Barberry25
            Barberry25 3 June 2021 17: 37
            +2
            why are the dead 4 small islands? drive troops there to be burned out with missiles? cover with surface ships? well, this is a very stupid decision, given that Russia has modern anti-ship missiles, not to mention the fact that in case of aggression Russia will have the right to strike throughout the territory of Japan and the American contingent will not help much here ... in fact, the Japanese will receive huge losses, which will ultimately lead to the impossibility of holding the islands, and then an amphibious operation will be carried out to liberate them.
            1. Andylw
              Andylw 3 June 2021 17: 49
              -2
              it's all fantasies
              the reality is that the Japanese Navy surpasses the Pacific Fleet by orders of magnitude and numerically and qualitatively, a similar situation in aviation, air defense, plots, drills
              the forces of the Russian Federation in the Far East, including all missiles, are completely insufficient
              and there is nowhere to transfer reinforcements - there are enemies around
              Crimea, Kaliningrad, Syria under siege
              Georgia licks its lips on p. Ossetia and Abkhazia, Ukraine, with the support of Turkey - to Crimea and Donbass, Transnistria still ... Karabakh needs to be controlled, the North Caucasus, bases in the North
              nato walks in the black, baltic and barents seas
              Where will you get the strength for reconquest?
              there are no allies
              no one will harness for us
              and here behind Japan is the umbrella of the United States
              1. Barberry25
                Barberry25 3 June 2021 17: 54
                +1
                and in what place did I write about "Tof will defeat the Japanese Navy"? indicate .. About "the US umbrella for Japan" .. this is very funny ... that's why they have already defeated the whole of North Korea and Iran .. aha ..
                1. Andylw
                  Andylw 3 June 2021 17: 58
                  -2
                  I wrote about the general balance of forces, and the Japanese-American air defense / pro, thanks to the North Korean missiles, is second only to the Israeli ...
                  And remind me, when was the last time the United States fought with North Korea and Iran and could not defeat them?
                  1. Barberry25
                    Barberry25 3 June 2021 18: 51
                    +2
                    laughing yes, here the Koreans, a couple of years ago, constantly tested missiles through Japan ... and even the United States did not rock the boat any further ... and the Japanese, too, although they were afraid that they would strike ... I see no point in talking ... you have one fleet to defeat everyone and you are simply not aware of the strategy of the General Staff of the Russian Federation .. so I don't see the point .. hi
                    1. Andylw
                      Andylw 3 June 2021 18: 56
                      -2
                      one fleet must conquer all

                      it's a lie
                      I wrote above that I am talking about the general balance of forces between the Russian Federation and Japan in the Far East
                      And yet, why shoot down a ballistic missile, which obviously flies much farther than the protected area and does not pose a threat to it, risking falling debris on a densely populated area if shot down?
                      they did the right thing that they didn't shoot down, but just controlled the flight
                  2. Knell wardenheart
                    Knell wardenheart 4 June 2021 10: 51
                    +1
                    Still, you should not compare the arsenal of Sevkoreya with ours - neither in quality, nor in quantity of quality, nor in terms of delivery options. Our funds are sharpened wtch to overcome the pro.
          2. Knell wardenheart
            Knell wardenheart 4 June 2021 10: 46
            +1
            Do we need to win them back in this case? We have the means to work on stationary high-value objects in the metropolis, the coordinates of which are known. War is war and we can just force them to peace in the long run. The damage that they can do to us in this case is incomparable with this. If the United States is drawn into the mess, the PRC will also be drawn in, this is an unnecessary scenario. The Japanese, of course, want smokers and may be ready to fight for them, but they are not ready for a war with their loved ones.
            1. Andylw
              Andylw 4 June 2021 13: 07
              -1
              Air defense / missile defense in the Japanese islands is the strongest in the region
              and missile carriers posing a threat to Japan are destroyed in the very first few hours under the conditions of total Japanese domination in the air
              China will also be involved

              to fight for our Kuril Islands? what the hell?)))))
              China is not our ally
              unlike the official allies of the United States and Japan
              1. Knell wardenheart
                Knell wardenheart 4 June 2021 13: 10
                0
                In your hands, we have not a damn thing - no air defense / missile defense in the region, no planes, enter through the front door and take with your bare paws even by "self-defense forces."
                China will be combed in any case, as soon as the Japanese begin to make landings or concentrate large forces in the immediate vicinity of its borders, and the United States should begin to pull its rattling forces into the region. On the Kuril Islands, the Chinese really do sneeze, but they will not sneeze that some questions unfavorable for them can be solved under the guise of this whole operation.
                1. Andylw
                  Andylw 4 June 2021 13: 19
                  -1
                  We have not a damn thing - no air defense / missile defense in the region, no planes, enter through the front door and take with your bare paws even by "self-defense forces"

                  now the reality is just like that
                  Japan's self-defense forces are many times stronger than the RF Armed Forces in the Far East
                  And your fantasies about China are ridiculous.
                  In the event of Russia's defeat, China also has something to profit from - the Amur region and the Ussuri region. Beijing Treaty of 1860 China does not recognize
                  1. Knell wardenheart
                    Knell wardenheart 4 June 2021 13: 46
                    +1
                    Also, China with its fleet and inflated PLA's tail is between your legs) Just a pervasive picture!
                    What kind of fantasies are there - China has long and firmly set its sights on domination in the region, from your point of view, it will "chew" major military reshuffles in its rear and will not blink an eye))
                    That is, he will generally be purple-and that the United States will drive up the fleet in support of Japan, and that Japan will calmly rebuild a real army instead of "self-defense forces" - Chotam, he's in the house, right?))
                    Or will you argue that China also has little strength?
                    1. Andylw
                      Andylw 4 June 2021 13: 54
                      -1
                      It is more profitable and safer for China to participate in the division of a defeated, weakened lonely state than to get involved in a war with the powerful NATO + Japan and Korea. For the war with the USA + Japan = the war with Japan + NATO.
                      And the alignment here is not in favor of China, for all its might.
                      it is obvious
                      in general, in the event of any conflict that does not affect its direct interests, China will simply remain on the sidelines
                      Remember, the Russian Federation has no allies (well, except for the funny ODKB)
                      And Japan has
                      and the US has
                      but the RF has a lot of enemies around the entire perimeter
                      1. Knell wardenheart
                        Knell wardenheart 4 June 2021 14: 13
                        0
                        In this scenario, China is its own ally, which is disadvantageous neither the strengthening of Japan, nor the deepening of the role of the United States in the region, nor the critical weakening of the Russian Federation. Snatch a piece? Who will share with him? Now it is not the configuration to snatch pieces - a lost war by the Russian Federation in the current conditions will most likely mean internal turmoil of one severity or another, probably in the future, the intervention of Japan of the same on a number of territories of the Far East - at least coastal and insular. Following Japan, the United States will also catch up - at the moment this part of the Chinese rear is protected by us, and this is beneficial to China. They wanted to sneeze at us there - but it is profitable for them that we have no complaints against them, we regularly supply them with resources, we do not have good relations with the United States and, for example, Japan. It is beneficial for them. And they are interested in this configuration.
                        The change in this configuration means that they will have to compete with new Japanese possessions, including new water areas. They will be driven out of part of the region by Japanese business. Japanese and American lobbying in the Far East will increase - and conditions for China will worsen. Whether you like it or not, no matter how cunning China is, it appreciates the misalliance between us, and any protracted conflict with Japan and the states, which will not be in our favor, puts it in a situation where the choice is better than a pass.
                      2. Andylw
                        Andylw 4 June 2021 14: 22
                        -1
                        It is beneficial for them. And they are interested in this configuration

                        it is NOT worth a war of destruction with the NATO bloc in order to save the Russian Federation from defeat
                        It is easier for China to seize Siberia and secure itself from this side
                        but this is all fantasy
                        China will remain on the sidelines in this conflict
                  2. Andylw
                    Andylw 4 June 2021 14: 01
                    -1
                    and in general, it is not worth inflating because of the 4 islands world armageddon with the participation of the usa, china, nato
                    Japan can handle this on its own, and quickly, within a few days and without serious losses for itself
                    1. Knell wardenheart
                      Knell wardenheart 4 June 2021 14: 15
                      0
                      And that's what I'm talking about - our most profitable strategy at the moment is to make them understand that it will not work out "by the way", that we are ready if we need to play "for a long time" and raise the rates. This is the most "oddball" it is their favorite label motive historically, but they do not like it for a long time, because it disorganizes them or is completely fraught with various bad and initially not taken into account things. Containment is also about playing on the opponent's phobias. And these are their phobias.
                    2. Andylw
                      Andylw 4 June 2021 14: 24
                      -1
                      it won't work out

                      will
                      Japan has everything for this
                      and she will cope on her own, without the US and NATO
                      fast and almost lossless

                      and to resist for a long time is not within the power of Japan, but Russia!
  • pin_code
    pin_code 4 June 2021 09: 04
    0
    unfortunately you're right ... and that's a fact.
  • mark1
    mark1 3 June 2021 12: 09
    +3
    Therefore, I cannot rule out a situation in which the Russian leadership would prefer to accept the loss of the Kuril Islands, but not to use nuclear weapons.

    Then come to terms with the loss of the Kaliningrad region, then with the loss of the Crimea, control over the Northern Sea Route ... But what !? Moscow is standing still - it does not budge! In truth, the breadth of the soul ("- take it! The state will not become impoverished!") And wild imagination can lead very far.
    ... But if an aggressor country does not claim to destroy a nuclear power, but seeks to resolve some local issue in its favor, it may well attack, not believing that nuclear weapons will be used "for such an insignificant reason."

    Well then, goodbye to the Kuban! And there who knows, and the Finns will chop off Karelia ...
    Both options doom the Russian Federation to a world that will be worse than the pre-war one, that is, we will lose in any case. We will lose despite our entire nuclear arsenal.

    Well, with such attitudes, we have already lost ... And "the whole world" in the person of the West will in any case tell us "oo-oo-oo-oo and" offer (demand, cry) to sit on the dock - this is their most slobbering dream.
    . Further went the accounting department to which one can answer one thing - the revival of the MPA, the strengthening of the air defense and anti-aircraft defense is required. And the most important thing is not to doubt the use of nuclear weapons and not to promote the linear tactics "wall to wall"
    But a continuation is coming, probably in it the AUTHOR will come to similar conclusions.
    The author expresses his deepest gratitude in advance to all those competent readers of "VO" who will find the time and desire to point out the mistakes made in the composition of the forces or their tasks.

    My competence, of course, is not very ... but since the article is in the public domain I have the right ...
    1. pin_code
      pin_code 4 June 2021 09: 09
      -1
      so the article and the author who wrote it are trying to convey to the public the presence of the UA or Av Kr (at least) an important part of the Navy. but we will defeat everyone with karakurt, or brawlers ...
  • BAI
    BAI 3 June 2021 12: 43
    0
    1.
    "Any state using nuclear or thermonuclear weapons should be considered as violating the Charter of the United Nations, acting contrary to the laws of humanity and committing a crime against humanity and civilization."

    After the use of nuclear weapons, the world will become different and no one will remember this article.
    2. The example of the Konstantin Khabensky charitable foundation shows that, on average, 100 rubles are spent on the treatment of one child who cannot be helped by the state. In 000, charitable foundations raised 2020 billion. This is assistance (including overhead costs) for about 160 million children. Here, as always, the base for the costs of aircraft carriers is being summed up. 1 billion. With this money, about 1500 million children can be cured, i.e. completely close the problem. The health care budget is 10 billion. When vital, pressing problems of children's health are not resolved, it is criminal and immoral to talk about crazy spending on unnecessary pieces of iron, which in case of war will be immediately destroyed.
    Those. once again: either save 10 million children (return them to full life), or 3 feeders for corrupt officials to demonstrate at parades.
    Although in the "Give a Chance" charity foundation, the sums start at 5 million, i.e. rescued d. less. Then spending money on unnecessary pieces of iron is a double crime.
    Which is more expensive: an aircraft carrier or life
    1. Per se.
      Per se. 3 June 2021 13: 30
      +5
      Quote: BAI
      The example of the Konstantin Khabensky charitable foundation shows that, on average, for the treatment of one child who cannot be helped by the state
      Key phrase, - "who cannot be helped by the state". Why is it that the state, whose direct, delegated responsibility, cannot help solve such problems," where is the money, Zin ", including taxes and medicine on insurance policies?

      Finally, from what ceiling are the prices for operations charged, and for drugs in general? Maybe the children are in poverty because everything was spent on aircraft carriers? No, there are no aircraft carriers, just, our billions are flowing out of Russia in jambs, and the questions here are, first of all, to the "our-not-our" Central Bank, under the IMF and FRS, as well as in general, the policy of banks lending to their economy, their enterprises and priority directions, including education and health care.

      Which is more expensive: an aircraft carrier or life
      This is a strong move, especially under the photo of the child. This means that the aircraft carriers have brought Russia to the point, we will know. If you count how much you can scrape together on tanks and missiles during the operation! Yes, the Soviet Union has fallen, we have lost to demagogues, hypocrites and political cheats, wolves, disguised in the sheep skins of "democracy" ... This eloquence has not dried up, ideological sabotage and, in general, ideological warfare is only gaining momentum. I would not have pumped Russia too.
      1. Vadim237
        Vadim237 3 June 2021 14: 11
        -2
        "who cannot be helped by the state." It can and does help - but it takes a long time because for this you need to collect documents, since the state cannot distribute money to the right and left - there are many swindlers, including in the system of collecting money for the treatment of children.
      2. pin_code
        pin_code 4 June 2021 09: 13
        0
        I agree with you on this issue.
    2. Barberry25
      Barberry25 3 June 2021 17: 31
      +1
      and here is the sophistry brought up
    3. pin_code
      pin_code 4 June 2021 09: 12
      0
      you need to treat something that can be cured REALLY. everything else is business and nothing more. burn in hell for those who collect money for the treatment of a deliberately incurable child ...
  • Vadim237
    Vadim237 3 June 2021 14: 06
    +2
    Yes, and with whom Russia will not fight at sea - as well as with her.
  • Barberry25
    Barberry25 3 June 2021 17: 29
    +1
    again lousy about the bath .. how is it tired .. you have nothing to do? am
  • Marachuh
    Marachuh 3 June 2021 18: 12
    -2
    We are waiting for the continuation. The beginning interested
  • Eug
    Eug 3 June 2021 19: 01
    +1
    Dear Andrey, in the event of a conflict over the Kuriles, is it not possible to "calibrate" (or do the same by other means) a couple of nuclear power plants?
    1. Vadim237
      Vadim237 3 June 2021 19: 06
      0
      In the event of a conflict over the Kuriles, our strategic aviation will calibrate Japan so that it will disappear as a state, and yes, the Japanese are aware and not as stupid as some of the authors present them here.
      1. Cherry Nine
        Cherry Nine 3 June 2021 19: 37
        -1
        Quote: Vadim237
        In the event of a conflict over the Kuriles, our strategic aviation

        There is nothing to catch just in the part of aviation against Japan. The Japanese have it quite serious.
        1. Vadim237
          Vadim237 3 June 2021 23: 52
          0
          Hundreds of cruise missiles with a range of 1000 kilometers or more, their aviation will definitely not intercept, especially since Japan does not have an integrated and unified air defense system, everything is scattered And yes, there are already C 300Vs on our islands, soon new Armor and Torahs will be added to them, built into a single air defense system, just fly will not work.
          1. Cherry Nine
            Cherry Nine 4 June 2021 06: 53
            0
            Quote: Vadim237
            Our islands already have C 300V, and soon new Armor and Torahs will be added to them, built into a single air defense system, it will not be possible to fly.

            In the event of a conflict, units on the Kuril Islands - suicide bombers, any of the strong fleets - there are three of them - will take them out in a matter of minutes.
            Quote: Vadim237
            especially since Japan has an integrated and unified air defense system

            Two countries have an integrated unified air defense system - Israel and the United States. So yes, it is almost impossible to exclude a breakthrough of the Kyrgyz Republic to industrial facilities. On the other hand, the Russian Aerospace Forces have never worked against the enemy with a full-fledged even focal air defense, and flights over Georgia ended with a downed Tu-22, let me remind you.
  • Ryaruav
    Ryaruav 3 June 2021 19: 07
    -1
    this is how the sect of moryachiny from Chelyabinsk has grown, I believe these are people generally far from the fleet, but faith in their guru is complete and without a doubt
  • Scaffold
    Scaffold 3 June 2021 20: 40
    +1
    Yes, and our situation is not in the best way.

    Come on, citizen! wassat laughing
  • Bekasov Artem Andreevich
    Bekasov Artem Andreevich 3 June 2021 20: 42
    -1
    Good article, thanks to the author!
    I propose expanding it into two articles with a comparative analysis of NATO forces with the forces of the Northern and Pacific Fleets (NK and submarine, VMA (reconnaissance, anti-submarine, strike and fighter), RER, electronic warfare and air defense units according to the following parameters: the required number of forces to repel this threat and the presence of real forces of means, and the possibility of strengthening (how and how quickly) .Then we get an objective picture.It may turn out that the solution of the country's defense tasks in these areas can be implemented without unnecessary spending (construction of aircraft carriers) or by other means (sharp and multiple strengthening the most effective components, for example, reconnaissance, aviation, amphibious or anti-submarine) or other methods (preventive weakening of enemy forces at the time of preparing an attack on us to a level where it is impossible to conduct offensive operations or abandon them). what is definitely missing and needed as quickly as possible, but better still yesterday ...
    Essentially the article:
    In my opinion, the solution to the tasks of the Northern Fleet facing our sailors may lie on land. Preventive seizure of military airfields and naval bases in Narvik and Buda (Norway), deployment of naval forces, aviation and air defense and missile defense there, rear bases in Kirkines, Alta and Tromsø (this is 2 times closer to Murmansk than to Plymouth or Portsmouth) will allow solving the problem of removing the US and UK AUG from the coast of Norway by more than 1000 km? Are missile strikes on military infrastructure in Central and Southern Norway taking this country out of the war? From land and sea we go to Trondheim, Bergen and Stavanger and bring the military infrastructure we need into working order.
    You can simultaneously count on the support of the Baltic Fleet, for example, in blocking the Danish Straits (mining the straits and exits from the naval base of other NATO countries (Poland, Germany) and Sweden, the capture of Copenhagen (Denmark). Air defense in Aalborg and the Navy in Frederiksavn? The emergence of strategic and attack naval aviation airfields in Buda (Norway) and Copenhagen (Denmark) creates great difficulties in operating AUG in the North Sea and a direct threat of nuclear missile strikes on Great Britain and the Atlantic coast of the United States? the ground forces in Poland can get a good result, and Germany, under the threat of nuclear missile strikes and in exchange for Szczecin and Piggy, will modestly keep silent. The Germans will not go to the second capture of Berlin by Russian troops, it will be cheaper for them to tie the Americans hand and foot in their German bases . And with our help, to drop this collar. According to the results of the development of such a scenario, the bestthere will be an increase in the area of ​​the Kaliningrad region with the inclusion of the former socialist Polish lands - Elblag, Olsztyn, Gdansk and Gdynia. Instead of Jurmala, Russian music festivals and KVN will look great in the resort of Sopot, where they were held during the Soviet era. And Poland does not have to have naval forces, or let them start building them from scratch in Kamen-Pomorskiy, again ordering ships and submarines from us. At the same time, it is necessary to carefully discuss with compatriots from the Baltic states the need to revise the borders in Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia. In such a way that the majority of Russians would find themselves inside Russia together with several ports and railways to Kaliningrad, which, after the construction of Ust-Luga, are unnecessary for them, but just right for us. And in Denmark and Norway, our military can stay for 50-70 years, as the Americans did in Germany. With full observance of democratic procedures and the right to veto any appointment of the leaders of the country, special services and the Ministry of Defense.
    In the Kuril Islands. What kind of panic? It is unclear why now, and not 10 years ago ?! In recent years, the military infrastructure of Kamchatka, Sakhalin and the Kuriles has improved markedly. According to people directly related to the former Spetsstroy, the number of objects built there over the past 15 years is in the hundreds. We constantly hear the expression of Japan's dissatisfaction on this matter, and this is good. If the North Islands issue were as important to the Japanese as the US refusal to supply oil, which led to the attack on Pearl Harbor in December 1941, they would have attacked immediately. But, this is far from the case. As a matter of domestic policy and the consolidation of the Japanese public, it is important, but far from vital. A joint attack with the United States by Japan with the current composition of the forces and means of the Pacific Fleet is possible. Therefore, close attention is paid to this region, and after the strengthening of the western borders of the country, the turn of the eastern ones came. Old military facilities were modernized and new ones built. New and modernized weapons are being supplied to both the Pacific Fleet and the Eastern Military District. The largest shipyard in the country is being rapidly built, allowing in the future to build warships of any class and tonnage, up to aircraft carriers (look at the DTSSS website, there are reports every 3 months with the progress of work). Loaded with orders for the medium term, the Amur Shipyard, which operates exclusively for the Pacific Fleet (project 20380 corvettes - 6 units will be built. and MRK project 22800 4 units. until the end of 2024). In the coming years, the grouping of DMZ and OZ ships will be replenished with three frigates of project 22350 and two large landing ships of project 11711. Over the past 7 years, the fleet has included 4 corvettes of project 22380/22385 (2 more are being prepared for launching), a base minesweeper of project 12700 (3 more are under construction), 6 anti-sabotage boats. As soon as they are ready to receive a naval base in Vilyuchinsk, the composition of the Pacific Fleet's nuclear submarines will begin to be replenished, including the forces of strategic nuclear forces (SSNF 6 units: project 955 / 955A - 2 in service, 1 is undergoing ZHI, 2 are under construction and will be included in the composition by the end of 2024 + in service 1 project 667BDR, SSGN 9 units: 4 projects 855 / 855M - 2 will become part of the fleet by the end of 2022, 2 more by the end of 2024. + 5 boats of project 949A - 3 in service and 2 for modernization until the end of 2023), 4 submarines - 1 in service, the rest for modernization, 6 torpedo diesel-electric submarines of project 877 and 6 attack missile diesel-electric submarines of project 636.3: 2 in service, 2 under construction , 2 will be laid in 2022. It was not for nothing that the Americans called the Vilyuchinskaya naval base and the airfield in Yelizovo "Wasp's Nest", they allow keeping under control the Bering Strait and approaches to it, the Kuril ridge and the passages to the Sea of ​​Okhotsk (by the way, the passage of the US Navy AUG into the freezing Sea of ​​Okhotsk gives nothing - nowhere to lean for further actions, and Russian submariners can catch on the pass), project force on Alaska and the Pacific coast of the United States, and also exert pressure on Japan (especially in northern Japan - Hakkaido). Therefore, further comprehensive strengthening of the military infrastructure and replenishment of the Navy and Air Force in Kamchatka is a primary task. The second most important task is to strengthen the Vladivostok region and create a powerful coastal infrastructure and a strong fist. There is an idea to create a second missile defense position area in this region, an analogue of the Moscow one and build up the forces and assets of the Pacific Fleet by building a new naval base in Fokino (Strelok Bay, Abrek Bay, Nazimov Bay, etc.), a series of 6 destroyers. and doubling the number of new frigates, corvettes and RTOs. Expensive, but will allow for a long time to close the issue with attempts by any country to come to the region with a desire to punish the Russians.
    The US and Japanese AUG's attempt to enter the Sea of ​​Japan / East has its own difficulties and is more like a mousetrap. First, it is important to understand whether South Korea is taking part in this adventure and whether North Korea and China will take the role of an outside observer or actively participate in the development of events. Factors that can seriously change the situation, up to a 180 degree turn. Secondly, the distance to the coast of Japan is less than 1000 km and allows us to operate our ground aircraft, which means that Japanese cities, ports and military facilities are under the threat of our missile and bomb strike. This also applies to US bases in the region. Here, the American and Japanese navies collide with surface ships, submarines and aviation of the Pacific Fleet in full measure. The hysteria of the Japanese military due to the passage of our strategic bombers Tu-95 and Tu-160 along the coast shows the unpreparedness of the Japanese Air Force and Air Defense for such a scenario. Does Japan need another Hiroshima? But there is still an opportunity to quickly build up due to the transfer from the European part of a sufficient number of TU-22M3M and Su-34. Even the combined forces of the United States, Japan and South Korea will not be easy. And the strengthening of the Eastern Military District will make such an attempt impossible even without the use of nuclear weapons. By the way, with such a development of events in the Far East, the presence or absence of an aircraft carrier in the Pacific Fleet is not critical. The Sea of ​​Japan / East and the Sea of ​​Okhotsk are too small for him. But the exit of the Pacific Fleet ships to the Pacific Ocean makes the presence of the DKVD and AV desirable. Together with the Russian naval base on Guam and free access to friendly ports: Singapore, Cam Ranh (Vietnam), Chennai (India) and Colombo (Sri Lanka).
    And yet, the dispute about the professionalism of individual authors is strange, although due to the fact that on the site there is no division into those who served and there is no. Everyone has the right to substantiate their judgments.
  • Usher
    Usher 3 June 2021 21: 10
    0
    Here I am amazed at the super insolence of the Japanese in the Kuril Islands. According to all norms, legal, moral, they have no rights to the Kuril Islands, from the word at all. But they still climb. We must, however, miss them.
  • SVD68
    SVD68 3 June 2021 22: 29
    +3
    The article has a terrible mistake regarding reputation loss. Failure to use tactical nuclear weapons in the event of loss of territories as a result of defeat in a war will lead to a fatal reputational loss - everyone will understand that our leadership is afraid to use nuclear weapons. And this means that the first disarming blow to our country will be inflicted, tk. our leadership will not dare to retaliate for 7-10 minutes while this is real.
    1. Vadim237
      Vadim237 3 June 2021 23: 56
      -2
      And conventional weapons will be enough to fight off everyone - the losses will be significant for those who decide to attack Russia, Japan and its entire fleet, any scenario for the seizure of the Kuriles by force does not shine.
  • tone
    tone 4 June 2021 05: 51
    0
    The main task of the Russian Navy in preventing a counterforce nuclear strike will be the timely detection of the increased activity of multipurpose nuclear submarines of the United States and its allies in our near sea zone, areas of combat services of strategic missile submarine cruisers (SSBNs) and on approaches to them.

    We take KTOF all BODs and the new 20380 are based in Vladivostok.
    The admirals do not consider it necessary to defend the SSBN.
    Give them the aircraft carriers of the cruisers and the frigates will conduct parades and go abroad for bonuses.
    It is necessary to change the ENTIRE command staff of the fleet. Perhaps starting from cap3. But where and how to bring up new ones?
  • Gunther
    Gunther 4 June 2021 12: 11
    +1
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    You need to understand that nuclear weapons are taboo ...


    Military doctrine of Russia:
    27. The Russian Federation reserves the right to use nuclear weapons in response to the use of nuclear and other types of weapons of mass destruction against it and (or) its allies, and also in case of aggression against the Russian Federation with the use of conventional weaponswhen the very existence of the state is threatened.
    here is really a question about the Constitution:
    Article 15, paragraph 4
    Quote: Author
    In 1961, the UN General Assembly adopted a resolution banning the use of nuclear weapons, which states: "any state using nuclear or thermonuclear weapons should be considered as violating the Charter of the United Nations, acting contrary to the laws of humanity and committing a crime against humanity and civilization."
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      6 June 2021 09: 13
      +1
      Quote: Gunter
      27. The Russian Federation reserves the right to use nuclear weapons in response to the use of nuclear and other types of weapons of mass destruction against it and (or) its allies, as well as in the event of aggression against the Russian Federation with the use of conventional weapons, when the very existence of the state is threatened.
  • Shadow041
    Shadow041 4 June 2021 18: 33
    0
    Andrey, on what basis do you consider the surrender of the Kuriles to Japan to be more profitable than a nuclear strike on Japan and the retention of the Kuriles as part of the Russian Federation ?! It is worth giving something away and it will be difficult to fight back from those who want to grab territories from the Russian Federation, and their number will grow by leaps and bounds !!! The United States arose against North Korea until it threatened with a nuclear strike on Alaska, Hawaii and the US bases in South Korea and Japan, so it is very doubtful that the United States, after the Russian nuclear strike on Japan, began to harness Japan with something other than sanctions and political yelling. The United States can attack the Russian Federation only when they are sure that there are cowards in Moscow who are not capable of delivering a nuclear strike against the United States ... by using nuclear weapons against Japan, the Russian Federation will make it clear to the United States that there is someone in Moscow to press the nuclear button, and this will sober up even such scumbags as McCain and company, then these guys are much more sorry for themselves than some kind of Japan ...
  • Osipov9391
    Osipov9391 5 June 2021 00: 02
    0
    But what about the number of the Ground Forces of 280 thousand people and the number of the Marine Corps of no more than 15 thousand people, you can protect the same Far East? Almost nothing! We have to start with this. From the Marine Corps, though.
    And yet, the Russian authorities will have to use tactical nuclear weapons against Japan in the event of its aggression on the Kuril Islands. Otherwise, the strongest political crisis in the country - the people will simply sweep away such power for the distribution of territory.
    1. ccsr
      ccsr 5 June 2021 15: 47
      0
      Quote: Osipov9391
      And yet, the Russian authorities will have to use tactical nuclear weapons against Japan in the event of its aggression on the Kuril Islands. Otherwise, the strongest political crisis in the country - the people will simply sweep away such power for the distribution of territory.

      I think that operational-tactical missiles can be used, if only because it is much faster, and the charges are more powerful, which will lead to the loss of control of the country if a strike is struck on their capital.
      But in reality, none of this will happen - in Japan, they assess our military power very adequately, and apart from the usual chatter in the media, they will never do anything as long as they see our real power.
  • Evil eye
    Evil eye 6 June 2021 09: 55
    0
    Beginning with the quarantine, I began to read the flotophile articles, especially yours and A. Timokhin's. I hope that now, thanks to you, I understand the specifics of the fleet a little better - still as an amateur, but already a little fond of it)) And therefore I would like to insert one "objection" and several additions to your argumentation.

    >> The main task of the Russian Navy in preventing a counterforce nuclear strike will be the timely detection of the increased activity of US multipurpose nuclear submarines ... we do not need an ocean-going fleet to solve this problem. <

    It's funny that several people in the comments immediately moved on the topic of whether an aircraft carrier is needed or not)))
    So, judging by Timokhin's argumentation, an aircraft carrier for the task of protecting SSBNs, although not necessary, is extremely desirable! And all because the enemy can use against our SSBNs not only their hunting submarines, but also anti-submarine aircraft. And in order to catch aviation, AWACS aircraft are needed, and for them you need cover + the ability to urgently call a flight when an enemy is detected. And for this the airfield must be right in the sea))) And it is natural that the "floating airfield", ie an aircraft carrier, even a light one, is the germ of an "ocean fleet", tk. to make a ship of at least 20 tons, unable to operate in the ocean, one has to be very perverted.
    (I am writing the "objection" in quotation marks, since the thesis about the uselessness of the ocean-going fleet is clearly not yours, judging by your articles, but a temporary concession to opponents in order to chew on the purpose of the fleet from simple to complex).

    It was an "objection", and now an addition on the topic of what should we do if all the forces of the United States and its allies come out against us alone? I will try to guess a possible solution based on the information in your articles. Of course, in such a situation you will have to fight back with what you have, but it will still be much better to fight back, having a strong fleet at least in the North and the Far East + naval aviation not _ instead of_, but _ together_ with the fleet. So, what can be done, what are the strategic and tactical techniques.

    0) The situation when we are alone against the strongest military bloc is a political failure. Politicians should attend to the search for allies, tempting them with the opportunity to stab the United States in the back while they are distracted by us (well, there, a campaign in Taiwan, the capture of Kuwait, etc.). Even better - if the United States attacks not us, but China, and we will beat in the back))))
    Obviously, this is from the series "hope for the best, prepare for the worst" and is not the task of the military. Politicians should look for allies, and the military should be ready to fight back alone. Therefore, this option is numbered 0, not 1.
    1) The exit of a large number of AUG in the sea should intensify reconnaissance. You need to start preparing your troops and keep your finger on the pulse, figuring out what the enemy is up to. It is advisable to "attach" a scout to them on the tail for tracking, and their role far from our shores can be played by a high-speed dual-purpose vessel.
    2) The destruction of more than one scout should be perceived as aggression and a reason for preventive action up to the withdrawal of the PGRK from the deployment sites, mining of water areas and the preventive capture of enemy bases (the same Norway).
    3) Confirmation by the scouts that the Aviks are heading for our shores - but without the casus belli - should cause an increase in readiness within the framework of existing international law. In particular, when approaching us, enemy forces must be immediately targeted by missile ships in accordance with the precepts of Gorshkov.
    4) Also, the increase in tension is a reason to bring the raiders out to sea, which will have to thin out the American rear. The more ships they send against us, the more supply ships there will be and the less forces will remain for the escort.
    5) Finally, the most desperate option. 5-6 AUG + American allies against us alone - this is extremely bad, on the one hand. On the other hand, this is an opportunity to conduct a general battle, which the Japanese have dreamed of throughout the war. Those. such a situation is, perhaps, a reason to take the risk and use tactical nuclear weapons against the amers. This, of course, is a crime and all that, but if they manage to drown most of their fleet at once, save their own and build on their success (including bringing SSBNs out to sea in order to try to still restrain nuclear escalation), then call post-war conferences we will and we will decide who was right and who is wrong.
  • skoggot
    skoggot 6 June 2021 14: 38
    0
    The fencing of this whole vegetable garden becomes absolutely meaningless if the obligation to use TNW in the event of aggression against the Russian Federation is clearly and unambiguously declared. Which is written, as far as I remember, in our military doctrine.
  • Evgeny Seleznev
    Evgeny Seleznev 7 June 2021 23: 29
    +1
    Quite an interesting article. Takes off rose-colored glasses, out of feelings of pride in the possession of a nuclear loaf.
  • Fatal error: Uncaught Error: Call to a member function delete () on null in /var/www/topwar/html/topwar.ru/vendor/ressio/pharse/pharse_node_html.php:1135 Stack trace: # 0 / var / www /topwar/html/topwar.ru/vendor/ressio/pharse/pharse_node_html.php(529): HTML_Node-> deleteChild (false) # 1 /var/www/topwar/html/topwar.ru/vendor/ressio/pharse/ pharse_node_html.php (269): HTML_Node-> delete () # 2 /var/www/topwar/html/topwar.ru/vendor/ressio/pharse/pharse_node_html.php(559): HTML_Node -> __ destruct () # 3 / var / www / topwar / html / topwar.ru / vendor / ressio / pharse / pharse_node_html.php (531): HTML_Node-> clear () # 4 /var/www/topwar/html/topwar.ru/vendor/ressio/ pharse / pharse_node_html.php (269): HTML_Node-> delete () # 5 [internal function]: HTML_Node -> __ destruct () # 6 {main} Next Error: Call to a member function delete () on null in / var / www / topwar / html / topwar.ru / vendor / ressio / pharse / pharse_node_html.php: 1135 Stack trace: # 0 /var/www/topwar/html/topwar.ru/vendor/ressio/pharse/pharse_node_html.php(529 ): HTML_Node-> deleteChild (false) # 1 / var / www / topwar / html / topw in /var/www/topwar/html/topwar.ru/vendor/ressio/pharse/pharse_node_html.php on line 1135