Tasks and composition of the Russian fleet
Entry
In the last article, I tried to reveal why you can't try to pull an owl onto a globe and plug holes with ships of inappropriate classes. Now let's talk about two eternal questions: "Why?" and "What to do?"
Many people ask: why does a land power need a fleet?
To answer, first of all, let's look at the following set of facts:
- The laying of the pipeline is slipping many times. This time, someone's scrap metal, which is hanging around, interferes (it was not me who came up with this, the Poles themselves joke).
- More than 50% of the export of goods from the Russian Federation is carried out by sea.
- In 2500 km from the sea there are many land bases of the potential enemy.
- It is the attack from the sea that is considered by the US Armed Forces when building plans for military operations against Russia. Mass raid of nuclear / non-nuclear weapons on key points and bases, mines to exclude the possibility of a full-fledged retaliatory nuclear strike.
And while it turns out that cover all airfields, mines, PGRK (mobile ground missile system) bases and their launch sites, and it is not so difficult to spot the convoy now, and they go on duty at best if at least several routes, and not a single road. Submarines, strategic missile submarine cruisers (SSBNs) remain a factor of uncertainty. That is why the anti-submarine defense (ASW) forces of NATO countries are well developed, and multipurpose boats are primarily hunters for our "strategists".
- When is it necessary to support, for example, the Syrians, how do they bring equipment and ammunition there? What will happen if dry cargo ships are stupidly blocked by announcing a naval blockade of Syria? After all, that's why the Syrian express was organized from the BDK.
- The congestion in the Suez Canal clearly shows how important sea transport routes are. What will have a greater impact on Japan (for example) in the event of questions about the Kuril Islands: blocking their oil tankers in the Persian Gulf or maneuvers of the ground army near Vladivostok (in the absence of an adequate number of large landing craft for the landing operation and ships to cover it)? But oil is the most commonplace that an island nation needs.
- and so on, because there are a lot of such facts and questions related to them.
Tasks
Everything has certain tasks. There are doctrines, there is logic. According to the official docs, they are as follows. Specifically, in accordance with the "Fundamentals of the state policy of the Russian Federation in the field of naval activities for the period up to 2030", approved by the Decree of the President of the Russian Federation of July 20.07.2017, 327 No. XNUMX ":
12. The Navy, as a service of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation, is intended to ensure the protection of the national interests of the Russian Federation and its allies in the World Ocean by military methods, to maintain military-political stability at the global and regional levels, and to repel aggression against the Russian Federation from ocean and sea directions. ...
13. The Navy creates and maintains the conditions necessary to ensure the safety of the maritime activities of the Russian Federation, ensures its naval presence, demonstrates the flag of the Russian Federation and the military power of the state in the World Ocean, takes part in the fight against piracy in the activities carried out by the world community military, peacekeeping and humanitarian actions that meet the interests of the Russian Federation, makes calls by warships (ships) of the Russian Federation to ports of foreign states, protects the state border of the Russian Federation in the underwater environment, including anti-submarine, anti-submarine sabotage defense in the interests of the security of the Russian Federation ...
17. The Navy and the federal security service bodies interact with each other in order to solve the tasks assigned to them.
By the way, I recommend that you read the entire document, where the threats are noted, and the tasks, and what we can do.
I will not cite it in full (there are 38 points), just note the most important in it in abbreviated order in order of increasing complexity:
- ensuring the protection of our territorial waters, assistance to border guards (and protection of bases);
- provision of anti-piracy activities, protection of shipping in the world's oceans;
- protection against attacks from sea areas;
- a demonstration of strength anywhere in the world (that is, if necessary - to be a small, but combat-ready squadron anywhere);
- be able to resist fleets other states in the event of a conflict;
- protection by the presence of the naval component of the triad of strategic nuclear forces and ensuring its functioning (to ensure the functioning and access to the SSBN position).
Of all this, we do not consider piracy, because if we wanted to, we would build an air base in dangerous areas and solve the problem with a few patrols. By the way, a group of mercenary guards (for which PMCs are used) costs less than one frigate exit at sea. And also, given the number of ships in the world's fleets, let them figure it out for themselves. I remember reports about poaching in our Sea of Okhotsk by the Japanese and the Chinese - that would be to drive them ...
What is the optimal composition of the fleet for such tasks?
Is it worth building ships for "patrolling" like 22160 (6 laid, 3 in service, cost about 6 billion / piece), which have no combat value in the event of a conflict for the first two points? Yes, they do the third, but what's the use of them - zero? And the fourth does not hit at all, they cannot resist (attention) to nobody, their Soviet MRK will sink, which is full in different fleets.
On all these questions, there is also a clause that we have four directions that have their own fleet. Two of them are local and two are strategic.
Baltic and Black Sea almost completely overlap aviation, are closed at the exit and are such puddles. Fleets on them should be able to:
- cover strategic points, bases;
- to cover the ground units and provide them with support;
- to prevent the deployment of enemy forces in our territorial waters and nearby;
- to provide "control over the situation" in these seas;
- if necessary, ensure the landing of a small assault force;
- The Black Sea Fleet can reinforce the squadron in the Mediterranean. Really, why? Are we going to climb into the Middle East and Africa forever? We don't even get paid for that.
The North and the Pacific are of strategic importance: access to the open ocean and in addition to the tasks set out above:
- Provide a guaranteed retaliatory nuclear strike in the event of a global nuclear war (SSBNs, as well as all carriers of anti-ship missiles with SBS) - accordingly, the covert and safe deployment of the SSBN in patrol areas and the exit of all carriers to the sea, if necessary.
- They guarantee the possibility of retaliatory hostilities in a non-nuclear version anywhere in the world against the enemy's naval forces and the delivery of missile strikes, providing cover from enemy missile strikes.
- Allows to monitor and control the enemy's naval nuclear deterrent forces (NSNF) with the possibility of disrupting their deployment and destroying carriers.
What is the optimal composition?
But it is not enough to have a certain number of pennants, it is important that they are enough for a quiet service - with repairs, upgrades ... For example, there is a nuclear submarine with intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs). While one is on patrol, the other is being inspected and preventive work, the third is being modernized / overhauled. In theory, there are already three of them. In practice, there is now one in the sea, you can push two. This also needs to be taken into account, especially with our long-term construction projects.
Also, an important role is played by naval aviation, satellite tracking systems, and coastal defense units. How many do you need? What can they and cannot do? The USSR Navy had a powerful naval reconnaissance system, brought together:
- satellite system of marine reconnaissance and target designation "Liana" (primary reconnaissance and control center);
- scouts of naval aviation;
- reconnaissance ships and patrol boats.
All this ensured constant monitoring of all AUG and most of the boats, including SSBNs. There was information in real time: who, where, when.
As a result, there was a real opportunity to track the enemy's movements and respond to them in a timely manner, carry out operations and apply countermeasures. And now we cannot even close the training area in the Barents Sea.
Compound. Minimum and maximum
Now we are not taking auxiliary support forces: minesweepers, supply vessels, medical, icebreakers, etc. It's about the main combat strength. Also, I do not take landing forces - this is a separate conversation.
In my understanding, it looks like this. In brackets - optional additions in the ideal case, so to speak, "maximum plan":
Explanatory brigade: for the Black Sea Fleet and the Baltic Fleet, optional - MRK, 1-2 destroyers as flagships of the fleet and, accordingly, the combat core, as well as an air defense / missile defense mobile point of the S-400 / S-500 level. The functions of these fleets are more defensive than offensive, the rest can be solved by the deployment of aviation ... More on this a little later.
For the Northern Fleet and Pacific Fleet, an aircraft carrier is optional, 1 per fleet to form a full-fledged AUG. Alas, so far nothing has been invented better for placing AWACS aircraft, and this is their main function. It is the presence of reconnaissance aircraft and an air strike wing, which in one raid can release up to 200 anti-ship missiles without entering the air defense zone of ships and remaining for them in general beyond the radio horizon (covert launch, which we talked about earlier), according to target designation data in real time from AWACS aircraft. Considering the range of anti-ship missiles of 300 km (up to 930 in the case of LRASM) +750 km radius of combat patrols, this is not just a "long arm". This is the beating of babies.
Further "optionality" is increased by the increase in the number of frigates and destroyers, as well as multipurpose submarines.
Tasks depending on the class of the ship. What kind of ship should it be?
As I wrote in the last article of the series, there are several criteria: cost / efficiency and versatility, which is imposed additionally. The problem is that the “multifunctionality” option is expensive and becomes optimally available only on large ships. They have large dimensions, a large ammunition load (AM), various weapons in the cells, which allows them to optimally fill the ammunition. For example, there is a nuance on what seems to be the most, "unparalleled in the world" ships of the corvette class - 20385: there are only 8 cells of 3C14.
It would seem great?
No, not great. To hit submarines, he needs a version of the caliber in the version of the PLUR (anti-submarine guided missile), because the 324-mm "Packet-NK" is still a means of self-defense. How many of them can he accommodate? Maximum 8. Taking into account that in modern realities of countermeasures it is clearly not 1 PLUR - 1 boat, for the entire BC to guarantee its defeat, the question is: where to stick anti-ship missiles or missile launchers to attack ground targets? Shoot "Redoubt"? So the warhead is not the same, it will not be enough. Redoubt is also a separate kind of perversion: launchers are inexpensive, but take up space and weight. At the same time, the radar complex and the actual fire control system (FCS) cost a lot of money. Shove it all into a corvette? As a result, we have a corvette at a price of half the destroyer with the capabilities of it - in 1/4, if not 1/8. Frigate? Not bad already, but what exactly does the frigate do? They are now from 3500 to 7200 tons, from PLO to anti-aircraft (AA) and station wagons. Accordingly, the price changes. The destroyer is now generally the pinnacle of the evolution of strike ships for everyone except the Russian Federation.
So what should a corvette be: a mini-destroyer or a ship that will do something well?
Corvette
Tasks: functioning within the near sea zone under the cover of our aviation, providing anti-aircraft missiles, providing counteraction at sea to ships of the same class, protecting territorial waters.
Meet, these tasks are performed by the Corvette. The smallest ship in size, where you can fit a GAS of normal characteristics, a helicopter (if needed).
What does a corvette need?
By the list:
Armament:
- HAK. Normal GAS, towed GAS, helicopter with GAS, drones with GAS. Let them even launch radio-controlled boats - and disguise their noises as a corvette, let them disguise it playing the role of "false targets", and watch the acoustic situation from several points. Or underwater vehicles.
- PLUR - optional or helicopter. The PLUR responds faster, the helicopter is much more multifunctional.
- Torpedoes / anti-torpedoes. Counter-torpedoes, in my opinion, need 4+ pieces per board. Why? Because if it is drowned by a boat, then, most likely, torpedoes or anti-ship missiles, and knowing that there is such a complex on board, fire a volley into all 4 TA. The Harpoon anti-ship missile system is, of course, cheaper, but torpedoes, in the event of direct opposition, are probably still more convenient to use.
- Bomber - if still relevant. I do not know, I will not say here about the effectiveness of countering such weapons torpedoes, it is certainly easier to hit a boat with torpedoes, with its maneuverability of 60 km / h and depths ...
- Air defense - exclusively for self-defense. A pair of Pantsir-ME / "Broadsword" with missiles will completely cover this, 16 missiles up to 20 km and plus ZAK. Or Ak-630 ("Duet", "Broadsword", etc. plus TOR-M2KM ("Dagger") in the VPU.
- Striking capabilities: anti-ship missiles - subsonic, cheap - to sink boats / corvettes / frigates / transports, if necessary. X-35U / "Caliber".
- A gun. If, of course, you need it, from 57 to 100 mm ...
Possibility of a stroke of 30-35 knots at least temporarily (hello to "Defender", which just left our TFR). Possibility of movement at low speed on electric motors for hunting submarines.
And the main thing - mass character... Such ships are needed not 1, not 2, not even 10 - but 36–66. You can, of course, say that I went too far with the number ... But how many corvettes do you need to cordon off the exercise area, for example? Again, it is the corvette that can be sent to chase the same pirates, poachers, border trespassers in our waters. Also, precisely because of the massiveness (and therefore, the minimum cost is needed), we refuse the Polyment-Redut complex. A radar for him costs a lot of money, requires space, energy, missiles are also not cheap and require space. So we are creating a corvette specifically for the purpose of anti-submarine defense against diesel-electric submarines, nuclear submarines. Naval aviation will provide him with air defense.
As cheap and cheerful as possible comes out something like the corvette "Visby" of the Swedish Navy:
640 tons,
35 knots,
57 mm AU Bofors,
8 anti-ship missiles,
2x8 PU SAM,
2x2 TA,
a helicopter (instead of an air defense system) and an excellent sonar consisting of: a sonar, an active descending sonar, a towed sonar in the form of a flexible extended towed antenna, underwater drones, a set of hydrophone buoys, as well as ship noise sensors, acoustic and vibration, throughout the hull.
Of course, their price came out to $ 0,9 billion, but ... Let's remember about calculation of the cost of ships in big macs 0,9x23,67 = 21 billion rubles. With a price of $ 22380 at 17,2 billion, something does not add up, given the size, "Polyment-Redut" and so on.
22800 in 800-870 tons is worth 2 billion, in the presence of UKSK (UVPU) for serious anti-ship missiles (and hence the price of BC). Considering that the GAC costs money, let's try to estimate the performance characteristics of what is needed in the minimum / maximum.
Although what am I talking about? The maximum is 20385 with a larger range of SJSCs or "Super-Karakurt", the middle peasant was made recently by the respected Maxim Klimov - here.
Therefore ... let's try to present the most minimal option:
- Displacement up to 800 tons. And you can also strain the creators of the hull of the minesweeper 12700 - fortunately, they made a unique hull of fiberglass, they can also make a hull similar in contours and bevels to the "Visby".
- Speed up to 30–35 knots.
- 1x57 (derivation-air defense in the sea version) or 1xAK-176 with new projectiles of the ZAK type from Bofors.
- 1x30-mm air defense installation. Whether it's a shell or one of a dozen other complexes "making brrr", since we have a lot of versions of them.
- 8 launchers Kh-35U (15 million rubles / piece)
not less than 8 PU Package-NK.
- 2x8 TOR-M2KM.
- SAC + underwater / surface drones.
- Helipad + system for refueling and supplying ammunition to the helicopter in the air.
All this can be placed on the Karakurt, if the Swedes have pushed it into 640 tons. And at the price of "Karakurt" / a little more expensive. Moreover, even with minimal alterations of the hull, it is possible to build up the superstructure to the very stern and assemble the weapons in it a little more competently. Although the same applies to the middle peasant - the key difference there is that the UKSK with a guidance complex is not thrown out of the "Karakurt". And the same it all fits into the "Karakurt" with the superstructure stretched to the stern section.
Frigate
In the niche of a frigate up to 5 thousand tons, our shipbuilders managed to make the best frigate. Substantial strike weapons, a powerful air defense system, solid anti-aircraft weapons, seaworthiness, range ...
The only thing that would be worth doing with it is to provide for the integration of the cheap and angry 9M-338 missile defense system into the Reduta launchers.
If we approach it globally, then yes, re-equip the ship.
As planned:
- Install not 16, but 24 PU UKSK (or even 32 ... according to rumors);
- Add more "Packet-NK" launchers. Because they are not rechargeable (only in the base), are unnecessarily heavy and in the place where it is installed, it is absolutely realistic to accommodate not 4, but 8 launchers each. Considering that this is a non-rotary launcher, consider a quadruple onboard torpedo tube from the times of the Russo-Japanese War, it can simply be stacked on a fortified side, two rows of 4, where the upper and lower cells are one module, which is pulled out and reloaded by a crane in the base. through the hatch. Yes, even 6 launchers, at least - there will already be a victory, giving a total of 12 anti-torpedo / torpedoes in the BC.
I don't know if the A-192M was taught to shoot normally? Let's hope that they taught us, because otherwise it is quite possible to install the A-190, which works normally and stably. A 100 mm frigate will be enough.
- Optionally - attach TOP or Pantsir missiles to the "Broadsword", since there is a place and the ability to install inclined launchers. Again - an increase in ammunition without significant alteration of the ship and an increase in channeling.
- Expand the hangar by two helicopters and provide for the placement of UAVs, including underwater drones.
We will keep silent about the fact that it is time to make a normal PLO / assault helicopter for the fleet, as well as the fact that, in theory, the entire range of 30-mm metal cutters can be taught to shoot not with cannon shells of the Great Patriotic War, but a la the Oerlikon-Millennium system »To provide projectiles with detonation in the air and 152 ballistic elements, which will greatly increase the efficiency of the use of these complexes, which are installed on all types of our ships.
Why?
With a rate of fire of 1000 rds / min and 152 striking elements, its density of fire is 152. Yes, here we need details on the effect of these elements weighing 000 g on an anti-ship missile, say, "Onyx", because the weight of a bullet is 3,3x7,62 - about 54 grams, and for a reason, 9-mm and 20-mm rapid-fire guns were invented to counter the heavy Soviet anti-ship missiles. But with such a density of fire (and much greater accuracy than that of the Ak-30), the rocket will be all like a sieve. "Broadsword" has a rate of fire of 630 rounds / min, and if it is stuffed with at least 10 larger elements, we will have 000 conventional "fire density". At the very least, it is definitely worthwhile to introduce measuring the projectile flight speed and setting the time of its detonation, as in the Erlikon.
- It is possible to envisage the placement of heavy missiles (for example, from the S-500) in the UKSK launcher. It will be very pleasant to arrange a surprise for the AWACS aircraft.
In summary:
- 24–32 RCC / PLUR / KR / heavy. SAM;
- 32-128 missiles;
- 12-16 324 mm torpedoes and anti-torpedoes;
- 2 helicopters.
And all this is not much more expensive than the original version, since all systems and radars already are on the ship, the hull is the same, well, except that the hangar will have to be redone and up to 1000 tons of increase in displacement.
In principle, such a frigate in our time is a small destroyer, and in the same Japanese Navy there are such destroyers ("Asahi"). Therefore, you can have 6 destroyers in the Pacific Fleet / Northern Fleet, and finish off the rest with such frigates (at least 9–12 per fleet). The key point is that they finally seem to have suffered, the supply of engines and gearboxes for them has begun, and, hopefully, someone in the fleet will have a bright idea that it is possible to deploy a second assembly line at the enterprise, allowing more than 1 set of power installations per year, but at least two.
Destroyer
Let's move on to the top of the evolution of shipbuilding in our time.
Due to the fact that such successful series of ships as BOD 1155, EM 956, 1164 are gradually aging, sooner or later it will be necessary to build something to replace them and come to the conclusion that one destroyer with an air defense system in the far zone can greatly enhance KUG ships with medium / self-defense. And yes, it is he who will be the most versatile ship.
Consider analogs?
As we can see, in a small displacement of up to 10000 tons, only highly specialized ships can be built, like the URO destroyer of Great Britain and Japan, where frigates / destroyers of other classes play the role of PLO (similar to the bundle from projects 1155 + 956). We will go the way of one ship to reduce the cost of the series, adequate terms of design and construction.
The Russian Federation now has two projects: the 15000-18000-ton nuclear "Leader" 23560 or the "bloated frigate" 22350M (7000+ tons). For convenience, they are listed in the table above.
This is how destroyers look like mock-ups in the photo.
Taking into account the problems with the power plant of the Russian frigates, I suppose that it is worth building a nuclear destroyer, in addition, it has a number of undeniable advantages:
- cruising range;
- the speed of deployment (swimming) - it can go in a 30-knot stroke for a long time. An ordinary ship has a cruising speed of up to 20 knots ("Arleigh-Burke");
- power reserve for onboard systems.
The tasks of the flagship destroyer KUG: providing long-range air defense, providing air defense for the AUG (if we live to see them), deploying several helicopters and a powerful composite HAC. Let's add increased autonomy, high speed and a powerful radar complex with AFAR.
So let's stop at a displacement of 12000-14000 tons, which is quite realistic to build at our shipyards. And suppose the composition of the weapons:
- 1x130 mm AU;
- 2–4 ZAK "Broadsword" / "Pantsir-M" (with guidance systems TOR-M2MK);
- UKSK: for 64+ units. - I suppose, nevertheless, that it makes sense to integrate the S-500 / S-400 into them, since the dimensions in terms of dimensions should be plus or minus comparable (maximum capacity within the Onyx anti-ship missile system);
- VPU: launching Redoubt / Thor, no more than 64 cells, the benefit of 9M338 / 9M100, in theory, should accommodate 4 pieces in a cell;
- TA: 12-16 "Package-NK";
- 2 helicopters;
- underwater, surface, flying drones;
- perhaps this is where assault boats will also fit? Well, or at least a couple of normal RHIBs with a quick descent / ascent system in the stern of the ship.
It is on this ship that you do not need to spare money, you do not need to stretch the work - having worked out everything that is possible on other ships. Reactors are already on icebreakers, all except for the S-500 and TOP, too. Moreover, both complexes can be run-in on the Gorshkov and then installed on various ships of the fleet. Either on "Peter the Great", but there is no reliable data on replacing the S-300 drum launchers with something normal, at least "Redoubt" or maybe S-400 / S-500, there is no.
The integration of radars from the S-500 is real. Again, you can test it on other ships.
By the way, it is on the nuclear destroyer that there will be no problems with the modernization of the complex later with new APMs based on gallium nitride elements.
I will not talk about the aircraft carrier here. There is a set of facts, such as:
- It is necessary as a carrier of early warning systems.
- As a carrier of a cover wing (24 fighter-interceptor-attack aircraft) minimum and strike (up to 60) - maximum.
- As a carrier of a large number of PLO, assault, rescue helicopters.
Actually, in the modern world it is he who is the eyes, ears, air defense and the main striking force of a classic ship formation. Air defense orders and PLO are needed to guarantee and reflect sudden attacks.
- It must be atomic.
Considering modern technologies, such as radars with AFAR, it is possible to create compact radar carriers - helicopters, attack fighters, small airplanes or even AWACS unmanned aerial vehicles. Also, taking into account aircraft with short take-off and landing, drones that are more compact than a conventional aircraft - it is possible to build not a giant of 100 tons, but something more modest in 000-30 thousand, like the Izumo helicopter carriers with the placement of F-45s or Chinese copies "Kuznetsova".
Only once again - first we need "components" in the form of aircraft, missiles for aircraft (the KS-172 is generally forgotten, nothing but the Mosquito / Kh-35U, as the anti-ship missile system for aviation is not adapted, as far as I know, and the RVV-SD is inferior to AIM -120D).
All this can be tested within the framework of naval aviation, in the form of creating an adequate air force included in the fleet system. We need AWACS aircraft that will constantly work out interaction with the forces of the fleet in exercises: giving illumination of targets, exercising control of the airspace and reconnaissance. We need regiments of missile carriers - be it Su-30SM, Su-34, Tu-22M3M, Tu-95 and others, who will train and, therefore, be able to use and organize a joint attack by an enemy KUG / AUG together with the forces of the fleet, so that anti-ship missiles from ships , Submarines and aircraft approached the target from different directions with a gap of a couple of seconds. Which will be able to detect and shoot down, for example, a subsonic anti-ship missile system at 15 m above sea level or issue a control center for missiles from the ship along it.
It should be understood that the price of, say, Su-30SM or Su-35 is about 3 billion rubles. Price 22800 - 2 billion, corvette 22380 - 17-21 billion, frigate 22350 - 27 billion (approximately). Modernization of "Nakhimov" and the estimated cost of construction 22560 - 100 billion, 885M - 41 billion, 955A - 64 billion, aircraft carrier "Vikramaditya" - 375 billion rubles.
Speaking about the economy and the capabilities of the Russian Federation, at GPV-2020 the fleet's share was 5 trillion rubles. Of course, in the end it was cut, because well, all plans were thwarted. Only 22800 "Karakurt" was not disrupted and incredibly quickly appeared, for which its creators need to be rewarded, cared for and cherished. But 5 trillion rubles is, for a second, 50 (!) Leader-class destroyers.
Yes, even if only 60% is for ships, and everything else is for infrastructure, development work, etc. - this is 3 trillion rubles!
These are 6 destroyers (600 billion), 18 frigates (600 billion), and if you build corvettes according to the proposed project and even if they cost not 2, like 22800, but 5 billion rubles, then 36 of these are 180 billion + 8 SSBN 955 ( 512 billion) + 12 885M "Ash" (492 billion) + 24 diesel-electric submarines 636 "Varshavyanka" (7,2 billion). And another 600 billion in reserve for the modernization of ships in the composition. Yes "Kuznetsov" one more could be built and modernized 3 out of four 1144.
As a result, we are building RTOs, which in fact are missile gunboats, have the displacement of a corvette, but they do not carry its functions, and without air defense and anti-aircraft defense they are only targets.
We have a modest 3 TFR (frigates still in fact according to the international classification), 10 corvettes, 2 frigates (plus 2 more sooner or later will reach the fleet), 2 (+2 launched) nuclear submarines, 6 SSBNs, 8 diesel-electric submarines (+4) and "Nakhimov" will be pushed off the slipway someday.
Where is the money, Billy?
Where are the ships?
Yes, of course, 2014 put a pig on everyone and it's good that at the very least, with the use of Chinese copies of Ukrainian diesel engines, they are trying to give birth with torment and suffering. And that our defense industry and the army are far from the most effective structure, and in terms of speed, the sloth designs something faster. And that “remember, gentlemen, this country will be ruined by corruption”, but ... you also need to understand that, as one cat said:
For two such programs, it was possible to saturate the fleet, and re-create naval aviation, and give birth to aircraft carriers, and put naval bases in order, and provide the basing of any nuclear / non-nuclear ships, cranes and docks for their repair and modernization, for fast loading of ammunition.
And we have what we have: the construction of absolutely unnecessary ships, controversial, pushing not a series, but "experimental ships" like 20386, and so on and so on. About any exercises on attacking a ship by aircraft, a joint attack and normal exercises to repel a missile / torpedo attack, imitation of missile attacks - the author also did not hear, which is even more sad.
MKRTS - also seems to have served its term for a long time, and the replacement of 4 satellites, if it works, is unlikely to close the space that was closed by 30+ of them.
Information