Military Review

The failure of the old concept of the Russian fleet

288

Recently, two interesting articles on a similar topic were published on the Military Review website: "The Battle for Serpent Island and the Mosquito Fleet" by A. Timokhin and "The death of the missile cruiser "Moskva" as a verdict on the concept of the" mosquito "fleet" Andrey from Chelyabinsk. In my opinion, in them the authors continued to persist in exactly the very approaches that provided our the fleet unpreparedness for a special military operation.


In this regard, I propose to look at the old postulates in the light of new events.

In one of his articles, A. Timokhin formulated a very correct approach. The article “Intellectual impasse of the Russian fleet? No, Russian society” raised the question that society would like to receive from the Navy. We will start from this – I, as a part of society, will try to formulate my expectations.

The fleet must be combat-ready, and in order to ensure this very combat readiness, it is paramount that in peacetime the command regularly assesses changes in the geopolitical situation, technical trends, methods of warfare, and prioritizes risks. As a result of the analysis, the fleet should receive the technical means necessary for effective participation in the expected conflicts, and also begin to improve the tactics of using these same means.

The result should be a state of affairs in which the fleet's contribution will be comparable to its share in the financing of the Armed Forces. But when I open the table below, I understand that something is wrong in the Kingdom of Denmark. Well, our fleet is not fighting even by 5%, not to mention 25%.

The failure of the old concept of the Russian fleet

Let's think about why this happened?

Syria...


The military operation of the Russian Federation in Syria, among other things, was remembered for the fact that our fleet used Caliber for the first time. The launches were made by small missile ships of the Caspian flotilla. This event in the media space was a huge success. The footage of the launches was broadcast and repeated many times on the air of all major channels, and domestic propagandists competed in inventing loud slogans for their stories.

It was at this point that certain people realized that they now had their own naval media franchise called "Caliber", which could be "sold" to the public an infinite number of times as irrefutable proof of the power of the Navy.

At the same time, a strike with cruise missiles is, to put it mildly, the most primitive thing that a fleet should be able to do.

However, in the media space, the situation is diametrically opposite - cruise missile strikes look very impressive: both the launch itself and the subsequent videos of eyewitnesses with missiles flying at low altitude, and directly hitting targets.

Only an aircraft carrier could compete with Caliber in the media space, but we all remember very well how the attempt to take this “height” ended for our fleet.

In the bottom line, the launches of the Caliber, due to their powerful impact on society (and not only), served as an excellent screen behind which real combat capability could be hidden. And as a result of this practice, our fleet does not really know how to do anything else.
Well, almost nothing.

In other words, all 25% of the budget is "spent" on what 4 small rocket ships can do. The situation is extremely deplorable. Moreover, it was updated a long time ago, in particular, Roman Skomorokhov in the article "Does it make sense for Russia to wage war at sea" wrote about the fleet in general:

And the result is not a very beautiful thing: we can definitely perform only one operation. Demolish the entire world with strategic submarine cruisers. The rest of the tasks such as local non-nuclear wars, counteraction, coastal defense - alas.

And about "Moscow", in particular:

He deliberately kept silent about "Moscow", this veteran as a cover / counteraction to the submarine is completely useless.

Preparing Russia for Failure at the Strategic Level


It is no secret to anyone that it is impossible at the tactical level to correct mistakes made at a higher, strategic level of planning. Understanding this, I propose to reconsider all the arguments that have been voiced by supporters of the fleet over the years.

I note that in none of the articles by the "flotophiles" was the scenario of a special military operation in Ukraine considered. Moreover, even direct questions about him were simply ignored.

(ignore example)

Ignore example

But many other interesting ideas were discussed, under which it was planned to “build a fleet”.


Shown here are the areas our fleet is supposed to control.

If we accumulate the whole essence of the articles of supporters of the fleet, we get something like the following.

Land thinking is poor. In contrast to the wretched land thinking, there is advanced naval thinking, which boils down to the fact that the fleet is a global force and affects wars globally. And for this global influence, it is necessary to sail somewhere far away and perform certain sea rituals there, for example, “waving handkerchiefs”.

By the way, a question to the authors, which is cheaper: to build 50 Tu-160Ms or to drive the Grigorovich and Essen to the Persian Gulf and wave handkerchiefs to the Japanese tanker captains from the bridge even before it all started? Interesting question, huh?

And in the same article about global influence.

The question is: what will be the result of bringing to the attention of Japanese decision makers that at the first aggravation of the military situation around the Kuriles, tankers with Japanese oil from the Persian Gulf will stop reaching Japan?..
Fleets are a global force, they affect the situation globally.

On the basis of such revelations, the rationale for the need for large ships in the far sea zone was based - aircraft carriers of 300 billion rubles each, the Nakhimovs, whose modernization was estimated at 70 billion rubles, and the Moskva cruisers. i.e. the most expensive fleet projects. All that is very expensive and in fact absolutely useless in the scenario that we have today.

At the same time, both I and other “opponents of the large fleet” (quite conditionally) not only did not consider such scenarios the most likely, but also directly asked questions about the scenario for a land operation in Ukraine.

Among other arguments, the problem of fleets being locked up in narrow water areas and the unsuitability of these water areas for large ships due to the fact that the latter become ordinary targets there was repeatedly voiced. For example, here:

But the aircraft carrier, at the first sign of a threatened period, moved from Tartus to the Red Sea ...
There will be a target hanging in the Red Sea.

But what about the supporters of the fleet? Against this background, respected Timokhin in one of his last articles writes the following:

First, a little about what our ships would have to face. There is an opinion about the fact that subsonic anti-ship cruise missiles (ASCs) ... are some kind of nonsense, a worthless target, which the air defense (air defense) of our ships can easily deal with.
In fact it is not.

It is surprising that the “opponents of the fleet” have been talking for years about the danger of anti-ship missiles for ships locked in shallow waters. But Timokhin is not embarrassed and in front of everyone changes black and white in places, and then expertly begins to explain to people exactly what he was told for years and what he so diligently ignored.

Moreover, the article proposes to listen to the reasoning of Maxim Klimov. The suggested video (2:34:00) shows the following image.


It displays infographically a list of our warships in the Mediterranean, given that all entry and exits are not controlled by us. And, as a result, this entire list is called by Maxim "a fleet to the slaughter." With regard to their combat effectiveness, the following characteristic is used - "they will be drowned like kittens." But wasn’t this talked about hundreds of times in articles and comments?

Against all this background, it is extremely curious what Timokhin wrote in another article lobbying the aircraft carrier:

So the US allies may well not come to war, this is a fact. And without them, it is not easy to deal with our ships even in the Mediterranean.

How do these assumptions differ from the failure of our intelligence regarding the situation in Ukraine?

How did it come to be realized that our ships in the Mediterranean are a fleet to be slaughtered, and anti-ship missile attacks in such waters pose a great danger to ships?

And most importantly, dear flotophiles, where do you need to sail? Who and what to wave?
To see this global fleet impact in reality?

Isn't this approach the cause of the death of "Moscow"? When another "symbol" of power, driven forward by the confidence that "the allies will not intervene, and without them it is not easy to deal with our ships", in the hope globally influence the situation, suddenly received 2 missiles on board in a simple and non-global way?

All these questions are rhetorical.

What could be done?


First of all, it was necessary to realize that our fleet is completely toothless in relation to the projection of its power on the coast.

The second logical step is the understanding that since 2014, the probability of a “land” scenario in Ukraine has increased every year. And consequently, the importance for the fleet to be able to project its power onto the shore also grew.
In addition, the problem of Transnistria has also existed all this time, as well as the Georgian-Ossetian "question".

The fact that such thoughts visited the command of the fleet is evidenced by the interest in the UDC of the French project. However, a curious thing happened to him. история - The United States "for some reason" forbade France to fulfill its obligations to Russia. It is possible to assume that they went for it because they saw something in the UDC that could interfere with their plans in this region? Back then it was just a plan.

Nevertheless, the story with the UDC repeats the oddities with the Tu-160. Let me remind you that the United States openly brought money to Ukraine so that it would destroy brand new Tu-160s. And all of a sudden, Timokhin and other flotophiles also came up with 1001 explanations why Russia shouldn't have these planes.

The Americans are doing everything to keep the Russian fleet without helicopter carriers, and our flotophiles agree with the Americans.

Against this background, the broadcast in society of ideas about the importance of building or modernizing huge and expensive ships in piece quantities, and (the most expensive in the fleet) of the ocean zone, also looks like outright sabotage. An example of such propaganda is the article "Point of support. What is more useful for the fleet: one nuclear cruiser or three frigates??

I want to note right away that I am not an opponent of large ships in principle. But I consider it a big mistake to ignore priorities - spending huge money on such huge ships in a situation where we have not solved more priority tasks.

Now let's move on to the consideration of the arguments of A. Timokhin, set out in the last article "The Battle for Serpent Island and the Mosquito Fleet".

Serpentine and the fleet of the Russian Federation


The first thing that catches your eye is that even today there is a complete lack of understanding of the need for the fleet to increase its capabilities in projecting force onto the shore. Instead, the article discusses some ideal "ship" that our fleet needs, based on an analysis of all the ups and downs around the Serpentine. This ship must have strong air defense. For what? To protect themselves from Bayraktars and anti-ship missiles.

Okay, but these are protective functions. What about "attack"? How will he destroy the enemy?

And if the enemy quickly landed on Serpentine? For this need a gun, drones for its guidance on board the ship. So - some kind of hangar for them.

And if the enemy tries to attack the ship with his small boats? For example, by installing some small-sized missiles on them (the same Brimstone)? Again a gun.

That is, the meaning of the ship, whose cost is 40 billion rubles, is to, at the risk of being fired upon by anti-ship missiles and Brimstone missiles, fire from ... a cannon itself. By ... boats ?!

Calibers? We have already found out that the Caspian flotilla from much cheaper ships can shoot them. About what aviation can do this, I generally keep quiet, because this will take away the last "bread" from the fleet.

However, this is not the only oddity in the text. Somehow, the logic of the article suggests that we consider the battle for Serpentine as the main task for the fleet. Only this can explain the fact that based on the analysis of this battle, arguments about the "ideal ship" are built.

And let's think about what will happen if we have this ship, and the enemy completely ignores Fr. Serpentine? Neither "Bayraktars", nor planes, nor helicopters will fly there. After all, there is nothing on the island, and therefore it does not pose any threat, unlike the entire land front, where battles go on every day. This means that the same Bayraktars, helicopters and aircraft will be used against the ground forces.
That is, it turns out, and the "ideal ship" will again turn into a fifth wheel. That is, it will not bring absolutely nothing to the theater. Personally, as a part of society, against the background of such toothlessness, it is difficult for me to perceive fairy tales about the “global influence” of the fleet.

Specifically, I believe that for the announced price tag, the fleet should have multiples бо Greater opportunities for projecting your strength onto the shore. This should be expressed in the fact that 200 km of the western coast of Ukraine, to a depth of 20 to 100 km, should become a “front” for the fleet.

Actively using helicopters and boats (and reconnaissance drones and kamikaze drones launched from them), the fleet must secure the zone constant control in the specified area.

The same Odessa Oil Refinery was supposed to be destroyed not by expensive Calibers, but by cheap kamikaze drones. As I wrote in my last article, our fleet, with its funding, should be able to do what, at least, the Houthis can do. In this regard, I would like to note that financially it is much cheaper than firing Caliber. But organizationally it is more difficult. In this connection, the attitude becomes clear - why bother and work on real coordination and development of complex tactics, if you can do what you have been doing for many years - shoot Caliber.

The country will pay, and the people will be delighted. Only now the refineries will run out. And then what? And then, the fleet, which can do nothing else, turns into ballast, on the maintenance of which 25% of the budget is spent.

But Timokhin sees no problem in this.

Well, since our fleet is traditionally used for strikes along the coast with cruise missiles ...

Klimov did not see her either.


He does not see the command either. So, it probably doesn't exist. Problems of this. And we, indeed, have not left such a future, when, during the most important special operation for Russia, the real participation of the fleet comes down to the contribution of several RTOs.

It remains a mystery why flotophiles for the future accept exclusively the concepts of the times of the Gorshkov fleet, including the monstrous ships of the ocean zone. And they completely ignore the truly modern trends in the development of the US Navy, which can be illustrated by the photograph below.


Fleet actions in an ideal situation


Consider the most ideal scenario of how our fleet could prepare for a special operation.

First of all, these are Mistrals or ships of similar functionality, domestically built. AWACS helicopters and Ka-52 attack helicopters should have been based on them. Landing ships would pose a threat of amphibious landings, which would force the Kyiv regime to concentrate forces along the coast.

You could also try to master the launch from the deck of a helicopter carrier of not light Orlans, but more complex Forpost-R medium reconnaissance and strike drones.

During raids to the coast, fast boats would launch reconnaissance drones, reveal the positions of the defenders and strike with kamikaze drones. Helicopters would also be involved for these tasks. Drawing analogies, we can say that the fleet would hold the enemy with one hand (creating a landing threat), and with the other it would strike at the enemy’s equipment.

Attack helicopters could carry out (or at least threaten to do so) low-altitude breakthroughs deep into the territory of Ukraine from the Black Sea.

This means that the front for Ukraine would be longer. On its land sector there would be less enemy equipment, fewer people, fewer Stingers and anti-tank systems. This means that it would be easier for the ground forces and aviation in these areas, the losses would be less. And the role of the fleet in this special operation would have increased many times over.

In addition, trying to defend the coast, the enemy could not afford to create long-term fortifications, since if the fleet had a large number of reconnaissance and strike assets, such positions would be simple targets.

Of course, with regard to AWACS, the most ideal option would be to create a light AWACS aircraft, and not necessarily a carrier-based one. Such planes are needed literally everywhere. However, we do not have a project of such an aircraft ready for serial production. But there is a helicopter. And under the circumstances, it is foolish not to use it.

Now, from the standpoint of participation in the operation of UDC-helicopter carriers, let's consider some of the arguments of the flotophiles.

And if the enemy tries to attack the ship with his small boats?

The experience of military operations shows that the easiest way to pull out a boat at sea is by helicopter. AWACS detects the boat long before it approaches the ship, and the attack helicopter catches up and destroys the ATGM.

Bayraktar, on the other hand, can be detected by a helicopter long before it is detected and hit by the frigate itself. And the Ka-52 flying out to intercept may well attack such an air target. But, firstly, this will happen at a distance that excludes visual contact between the Bayraktar and the ships. Secondly, the frigate will not waste its longer-range missiles on this target and will keep the ammo, which is difficult to replenish at sea (impossible in some cases).

But the most important thing to remember is that this entire "mosquito" fleet will under no circumstances become the basis of the Navy's combat power. The idea to bet on it or be limited to small ships is inoperative and unable to lead to anything but heavy and insulting losses.
Any other statement is no more than another myth.

By writing this argument, Alexander is implying that the fleet should abandon the idea of ​​limiting itself to small ships.

And here we must pay tribute - such an idea is really bad. However, we are not talking about limiting ourselves, but about supplementing the fleet with both helicopter carriers (which by no means can be called small ships) and really small ships and boats.

In the “defense” mode, such boats, being combined into one information network, in the event of a missile salvo at the ship, can be sources of interference, taking the missiles towards themselves.
They can also fire off floating corner reflectors, which also increases the chance of the missile moving away from the main target. They can be placed equipment for anti-aircraft defense or air defense systems.

About future...


In the modern world, the creation of unmanned boats is a trend. The ideas voiced in the articles by Timokhin and Andrey from Chelyabinsk look very alarming against the backdrop of News that "Turkey is testing an unmanned boat". One gets the feeling that we want to again step on the same rake as with strike drones - to lag behind Turkey and the whole world for 10 years, and then frantically catch up.

And to lag behind, first of all, conceptually. At the level of approaches to combat operations.
Respected authors were not embarrassed that the Russian fleet could not sink the Georgian boats a couple of hundred kilometers from their base. And the helicopter carriers were supposed to appear in the fleet after the analysis of that war with Georgia.

But why bother with real combat effectiveness when you can fantasize about how our mighty fleet will globally influence events somewhere in the Persian Gulf?

What is good, what is bad?


Readers may have a question - why do you need to fence the garden around the mosquito fleet and attack helicopters in the Black Sea (and not only). To answer it, it is necessary to clearly understand what any hostilities boil down to.

In an effort to inflict damage on the enemy, we risk receiving damage in return. If trying to inflict damage on the enemy by 100 million, we put our combat unit, which costs 1 billion, at high risk, other things being equal, we will lose such a war.
And vice versa - if we use a cheaper means to destroy a combat unit for 1 billion, this brings us closer to victory.

Through this prism, I propose to look at what happened on Fr. Zmein, when the cruiser "Moskva" approached the island at a very close distance.

On one side of the scale was such an important military goal as "shouting through the loudspeaker" and scaring the people on the island with their formidable appearance. On the other side of the scale is the risk of getting an ATGM directly into one of the missiles. Is this benefit/risk ratio adequate? In my opinion, no.

It is assumed that the fleet should be able to destroy the means that the enemy has allocated to protect against the landing. Let's say the enemy has placed howitzers 20 km from the coastline. And at a distance of 30 km, an armored group was formed, which dispersed throughout a residential area. Several MLRS installations were also located there. Conducting a landing operation in such conditions is suicide.

However, what weapons does our fleet have in order to carry out a sweep? The frigate should come ashore and engage in an artillery duel with towed howitzers? Our fleet has no adequate instruments of influence. And without clearing the coast, what was the point of driving all this armada of landing ships? In addition to "window dressing"?

Any sane person understands that the entire threat of a landing operation from the very beginning was nothing more than a performance focused solely on creating the appearance of the participation of the fleet. After all, if they really decided to carry out a landing, most of these ships would have been destroyed. How the BDK burns, we have already observed during this special operation.

At the same time, the enemy fends off all our landing ships with very simple and cheap means - towed artillery and not the most long-range MLRS.

It is precisely due to the absence of such tools in the fleet that we get a situation where 25% of our defense spending is actually simply not able to take part in the war. Except for the contribution, as already mentioned, equivalent to the contribution of several RTOs, which may well strike from the Caspian Sea, and they do not need any air defense for this.

Small-tonnage boats, with the ability to launch UAVs and kamikaze drones, as well as attack helicopters, should be the means by which the fleet will be able to clean up the coast. At the same time, the risk of losing a boat is not comparable with the risk of damage to a large ship (even a corvette).

You failed...


In conclusion, I would like to recall the article "A blow against reality or about the fleet, Tu-160 and the cost of human error" and assess who hit what.

The fleet collected all the "rake" that was warned about.

The most expensive "toys" again "slept through" this war - we do not see either an aircraft carrier or "Nakhimov" - we could not ensure their rotation (which we warned about). We also could not ensure the readiness of those "large ships of the Gorshkov era", which could at least make them swim (an example with the cruiser "Moskva"). Even being in perfect condition, these gigantic ships would not be able to bring anything to this special operation.

We saw a characteristic of the combat stability of our flotilla in the Mediterranean Sea from Maxim Klimov, which turned out to be far from complimentary. The expectation that the "allies" would not appear did not materialize - they appeared in the format in which they had planned.

The calculation that "it is not so easy to sink our ships" also did not materialize. At the same time, we did not see any handkerchiefs waving to anyone and did not see the "global" influence of the fleet.

So who ended up hitting reality?

Against the background of all this, Andrey from Chelyabinsk wrote an article with a telling title "The death of the missile cruiser "Moskva" as a verdict on the concept of the" mosquito "fleet". The logic is this. All the concepts of the ocean fleet failed. Our largest ships are locked in the Mediterranean and are at risk of being "sunk like kittens."

But as a result, the mosquito fleet failed (which, by the way, was not created, since the presence of boats is not a fleet).
Author:
Photos used:
https://ru.wikipedia.org, mil.ru
288 comments
Ad

Subscribe to our Telegram channel, regularly additional information about the special operation in Ukraine, a large amount of information, videos, something that does not fall on the site: https://t.me/topwar_official

Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. The comment was deleted.
    1. The comment was deleted.
    2. The comment was deleted.
    3. The comment was deleted.
      1. saigon
        saigon 27 June 2022 09: 17
        +9
        Yes, the author does not understand why the fleet of our country is half the trouble, I suspect that the admirals do not understand this, and this is bad.
        It seems to me that apart from boats with nuclear weapons, they cannot think of anything else to use.
        Before arguing about what kind of fleet we need, it’s worth considering how and for what purposes it should be used.
        1. dSK
          dSK 27 June 2022 10: 46
          +2
          And the security of the nuclear submarine ...
          1. qQQQ
            qQQQ 27 June 2022 11: 57
            +5
            Quote: dsk
            And the security of the nuclear submarine ...

            That's the only reason we need a fleet. We are a land power, we have at least three sea areas isolated from each other. Accordingly, it is necessary to have at least three fleets, each of which must be equivalent to the number of forces that the adversary will put up against us. No country can do that. For the last two hundred years, our fleet has not brought any significant results, although it has consumed more resources than all the others. Can still focus on those areas where there is progress. And leave the fleet with the task of ensuring the deployment of nuclear submarines near our borders. Aviation will help him there.
            1. PSih2097
              PSih2097 28 June 2022 00: 20
              0
              Quote: qqqq
              No country can do that.

              Well, one pulls, you write its name? Or guess yourself?
              1. qQQQ
                qQQQ 28 June 2022 11: 09
                +2
                Quote: PSih2097
                Well, one pulls

                In fact, it has two directions: west and east. She (I think we are talking about the United States) depends on maritime transport, so she has a fleet in priority to the detriment of ground forces. And most importantly, the United States prints money, and we earn it, this is a small difference.
                1. Mordvin 3
                  Mordvin 3 29 June 2022 06: 02
                  -2
                  Quote: qqqq
                  And most importantly, the United States prints money, and we earn it, this is a small difference.

                  Yes, damn it, but once Hawaii asked to be part of Russia.
              2. user
                user 28 June 2022 14: 53
                +1
                Well, one pulls, you write its name?

                They have a different geography, so there are only 2 fleets, plus control over the Panama Canal for quick transfer from one fleet to another.
                And how many pennants and for how many days can you quickly translate, let's say, to TF, well, if you do not use non-normative vocabulary, answer.
            2. Mavrikiy
              Mavrikiy 28 June 2022 01: 38
              +3
              Quote: qqqq
              Accordingly, it is necessary to have at least three fleets, each of which must be equivalent to the number of forces that the adversary will put up against us.

              recourse Of course it's nonsense. A collective adversary will rise up against us and he will choose the choice of the strike water area. Those. the place of impact is unknown, and the force of impact exceeds ours.
              No country can do that. For the last two hundred years, our fleet has not brought any significant results, although it has consumed more resources than all the others.
              That's for sure. Of all the wars at sea, only with the Swedes and the Turks had success, almost one by one.
              1. qQQQ
                qQQQ 28 June 2022 11: 12
                +4
                Quote: Mavrikiy
                Of all the wars at sea, only with the Swedes and the Turks had success, almost one by one.

                And it was almost 200 years ago. And then, to our great regret, our fleet has nothing to boast of. A series of defeats and (or) little support for the ground army. In general, the invested funds absolutely do not correspond to the expected result.
          2. Taimen
            Taimen 27 June 2022 13: 10
            -4
            So that everyone can see by the presence of guard ships, where the nuclear submarine itself is. The Premier League and the rest are lone wolves so that no one knows where they are at the moment.
        2. Doctor
          Doctor 27 June 2022 12: 13
          +2
          Yes, the author does not understand why the fleet of our country is half the trouble, I suspect that the admirals do not understand this, and this is bad.

          Russia has two troubles - the army and the navy.))laughing

          But seriously, the time of any large ships is gone with the advent of nuclear weapons and missiles. Especially such troughs as UDC. The Americans came up with it for only one purpose - to use it as a floating base for small landing craft, operating outside the defeat of the Vietnamese cannon artillery.
          With the advent of the BRK, all this lost its meaning.

          UDC is just a cargo ship with helicopters, wounded and high command. Marinesko's dream. wink
  2. The comment was deleted.
    1. Alex 1970
      Alex 1970 27 June 2022 06: 28
      +1
      Visited similar thoughts, about which I wrote below. good
    2. bayard
      bayard 27 June 2022 09: 51
      +13
      Quote: Mavrikiy
      Yes, you need to read it, but .... liberal porridge, and with horseradish (it’s impossible not only to eat, but also to swallow. Just spit it out):

      A very capacious summary to this stream of crooked thoughts.
      25% of the military budget excited him lol , but the fact that the Navy has practically no modern ships does not surprise him?
      That the Fleet must first be built, and then something should be expected from it. And the idea looks like absolute wildness ... to build wassat Fleet under conflict with Ukraine. fool And to wish for this ... helicopter carriers. What was that??
      Moderators, do you even look at WHAT (!!!) you publish? In the country and the world, and so what the hell, and then there is an article from the chamber number 6 ...

      To build a normal Fleet almost from scratch (like ours, except for the NSNF) you need to have a time lag of 20 years. And this despite the fact that we have no problems with critical technologies and industries.
      The Russian Federation has such problems.
      And first of all, this is the notorious "engine curse" - we do not have ship and ship engines, industry and applied science cannot solve this problem after the break in industrial cooperation with Ukraine. And after the victory over it, the problem will not be solved, because these production facilities have already been EXPORTED from Nikolaev ... The rest of the problems (which exist, but they are not so critical) will not be considered.
      What's left to do?
      Restore ... or rather, RE-GET new competencies in marine engine building. For the brave statements that "we were able", "we created", "mass production has begun" over and over again turn into zilch. I am now about the power plant for frigates 22350. It is now the middle of summer, and the long-awaited sea trials (!) of the Admiral Golovko have not yet begun ... therefore, to assume that the domestic power plant has turned out and is able to work normally and reliably request not .
      But if a MIRACLE happens, and the tests, and then the practical operation, confirm the words of the officials "what happened" ... it will really turn out to be a miracle, because a whole herd of the same frigates froze on the stocks waiting for their power plants. So a series of these ships will still go ...
      We have exactly the same expectations of a miracle in relation to the power plant for future "frigates" (in fact, destroyers) pr. And if we can actually make turbines, then the main questions are for ... running gears. There were problems with this, but if they can ... fellow it will be a holiday. For it is planned for the construction of such "frigates" of the oceanic zone as many as 20 - 24 pieces. , moreover, at several shipyards at once - the Amur Shipyard, in St. Petersburg, and also possibly in Kaliningrad or Kerch. There would be a power plant, and the rest is all debugged on pr. 22350.
      Corvettes?
      We have chosen a very unsuccessful in terms of cost and production capabilities, the concept of a corvette. Etc. 20380 and 20385 turned out to be extremely expensive, complex and long to build and with unintelligible air defense. And if at the moment there would be at least some opportunity to acquire a suitable power plant for the BMZ VI 1500 - 1700 tons ship, then it would be possible to recommend IMMEDIATELY switching to the construction of such PLO corvettes at several shipyards at once, without cluttering up serious orders with such orders - large shipyards. You can build them on Pella, in Zelenodolsk and somewhere in Primorye (Amur Shipyard is better to fully load Project 22350, although ...).
      The armament of such a corvette with VI 1500 - 1700 tons:
      - UKSK for 8 - 12 cells,
      - HAK from submersible and BUGAS, because nothing large can be placed under the keel \ in the bulb,
      - "Package-NK",
      - "Pantsir-M"
      - gun 76 mm.
      - RLC "dm" and "cm" ranges.
      - possibly a helipad for landing, without a hangar.
      Everything ! At a price for all the pleasure of the order of 12 - 15 billion (one and a half "Karakurt").
      But... engines...
      Let's dream?
      "A great blessing for the Navy and the Russian Federation as a whole" (a Chinese expression reflecting some dreaminess, but also determination) would be the acquisition and development by the domestic industry of a diesel unit of the type ... that are on many Chinese ships, incl. on frigates type. 054A - with a power slightly higher than 8 l / s.
      Three such diesel engines would make an excellent power plant for the PLO corvette described above, they would give it very good speed characteristics with sufficient efficiency and reliability.
      This diesel engine was bought by the Chinese under a license in France, it is not new, but it is quite worked out (we now have a diesel engine in general from the middle of the last century on Karakurt!).
      - Copyright - you cry - Yes, who will allow us !!!
      - Tranquility. Only calm. Domestic legislation took care and completely removed the responsibility for copy-paste and illegal purchase from domestic manufacturers ... So let's USE it!

      ... That's probably all that our Fleet needs today from combat surface ships BMZ ("Superkarakurt" VI 1500 - 1700 tons on solid-drawn diesel engines of 8 l / s), DMZ (pr. 000), OZ ( pr. 22350M) .
      What else would you like to wish?
      Well, in development of the foregoing, I would like to see in the future some kind of continuation of the series of frigates pr. there would be a seamless YES at 22350.1 l / s ... or a M32RU gas sustainer turbine (2 l / s), which can also add its torque with an afterburner turbine ... Then 4 will get rid of its running insufficiency - low economic speed (cruising) and insufficient (35 - 8 knots) maximum speed. Then 000.X will simply become a swallow of the far zone.
      By the way, the power plant that is being prepared for the 22350M is quite suitable for the UDC under construction in Kerch. Apparently they are counting on her.

      What else would you like?
      Complete the fourth hull of frigate 11356, which fell into sludge in Kaliningrad, but according to a modernized project. And later, during the planned medium repair, carry out exactly the same modernization of the other three frigates available at the Black Sea Fleet.
      Appearance :
      - Instead of the insane and useless GAK, install the GAK from the corvette 20380, with BUGAS + submersible on the foot.
      - Instead of old TAs, install "Packet-NK, but preferably in normal rechargeable TAs ... or provide for the possibility of operational reloading of launchers at sea.
      - Dismantle the jet bomber on the tank as unnecessary and place one or two UKKS instead, because there is enough space for them.
      - With a VERY strong desire to place two X-35 anti-ship missile launchers on the helipad at the hangar cut with "exhaust" into the sea. As an option to enhance anti-ship capabilities.
      ALL .
      If such decisions and programs regarding the construction of surface warships were adopted and IMPLEMENTED, I would be simply HAPPY.
      Good day everyone.
      hi
      1. saigon
        saigon 27 June 2022 13: 01
        +10
        Dear, before solving particular problems in the construction of engines. corps and other things, it is necessary to decide FOR WHAT tasks and purposes the fleet is needed.
        And after the political decision to build and create projects, and God forbid, extra money will appear and you can do projects
        1. bayard
          bayard 27 June 2022 14: 15
          +6
          Quote: saigon
          before solving particular problems for the construction of engines. corps and other things, it is necessary to decide FOR WHAT tasks and purposes the fleet is needed.

          Do you want me to formulate these tasks ?
          Please, but I will focus on the main thing, because the Fleet can have many tasks.
          1) Protection of own bases, territorial waters and the exclusive economic zone, torrential zones in the areas where the Fleet enters the operational space, combat deployment areas of submarine missile carriers of the NSNF, maintenance of anti-aircraft defense in the above waters, radar patrol, air defense in missile-prone areas (from the KR), assistance to forces Coastal Defense and Ground Forces operating in coastal areas, providing amphibious assaults. These are the tasks of the Fleet in BMZ.
          2) In the far sea zone, carry out ENSURING THE SECURITY OF NAVIGATION of ships of the domestic merchant fleet and ships of friendly and allied countries, monitor and control the activities of enemy and unfriendly fleets and individual ships, if necessary, carry out escort and "weapon tracking" of enemy and unfriendly KUG, AUG and individual ships, the implementation of combat guards of the fleet's landing forces in the DMZ, escort of sea convoys and caravans of ships in the event of a threat of piracy, incl. from countries unfriendly to Russia, perform representative functions and display the flag, search for and track enemy and unfriendly submarines, primarily identifying, accompanying, and, if necessary, destroying enemy SSBNs and MAPLs, maintaining continuous airspace control with their own radars, as well as radio engineering , radiological and other types of reconnaissance. If necessary, the tasks can be expanded and supplemented.
          3) Tasks in the ocean zone completely repeat the tasks in the DMZ, but provide for the service by the forces of ships and vessels providing / supplying appropriate seaworthiness and autonomy, as part of operational squadrons of advanced and preemptive deployment.

          This is without detail, but it is obvious that in the light of the growing and predictable confrontation in the future, the Navy will be obliged to ensure the SAFE FREEDOM OF NAVIGATION of the domestic merchant fleet in all areas of the world's oceans where the routes of our merchant fleet lie.
          From this it is clear that the Fleet must be Oceanic, consist of ships of the appropriate classes with proper seaworthiness, autonomy, strike and defensive combat capabilities.
          Not "ersatz fleet".
          For the need to ensure the security of the Merchant Fleet obliges this.
          Why is that ?
          Yes, because a HUGE merchant fleet is being built in the Russian Federation. Currently (data from international statistics) at domestic and foreign shipyards, ships under construction for the Russian Federation in terms of tonnage, exceed the tonnage of commercial ships under construction for the rest of the world. request
          How did this happen and why would it?
          From need. yes
          After the collapse of the USSR, Russia lost almost all of its merchant and fishing fleet, and now, when there is a need to export huge amounts of resources (oil, LNG, coal, ores, metals) from the Arctic zones, as well as to ensure economic activity in the Arctic, export with their ships their oil, LNG, coal, grain, fertilizers, metals, etc., to remote regions of the world ... I had to urgently build and order a huge number of specialized ships. And in the light of recent changes, when the directions and flows of our exports are radically changing (instead of Europe - India, Southeast Asia, Africa, Latin America) ... it is precisely OWN merchant / commercial ships that are needed ... and more and more of them are needed, because the freight of foreign and their insurance became difficult.
          And all this huge economy will have to be PROTECTED and ensure safety in sea and ocean communications.
          - Does the Russian State have funds for this?
          - MORE THAN !
          - Are there all the necessary technical capabilities for such a non-trivial task?
          - Alas, there are a number of heavy and bottlenecks ... First of all - propulsion systems. Secondly, the lack of a production base for the production of the entire necessary range of radio components ... Everything is as always.
          And there are also problems with trained personnel and educational institutions for the preparation of these - both working specialties and engineering staff.
          But what is needed to solve any problem?
          - Awareness of purpose.
          - Formulation of the problem .
          - Appointment of responsible persons.
          - Allocation of funds and resources.
          - Organization of comprehensive state support for such priority programs.
          - Establishment of the most severe control over the fulfillment of the assigned tasks, severe and demonstrative punishment of embezzlers, pests and saboteurs.

          ... How realistic are these plans?
          - In the current state of affairs - NO, absolutely unrealistic. The economic and financial bloc will plunder everything, unwind and fail.
          - But after all, the need not only encourages, but also forces. sad
          - Exactly . And if the authorities do not realize the importance and depth of the problem (I'm not talking about the fleet and shipbuilding), then it has a chance to survive (not even save anything) request not .
          "There's no gasket...
          Here the whole system needs to be changed." - said the plumber ... and shed a tear.
          1. Doctor
            Doctor 27 June 2022 15: 22
            -3
            1) Protection of own bases, territorial waters and the exclusive economic zone, torrential zones in the areas where the Fleet enters the operational space, combat deployment areas of submarine missile carriers of the NSNF, maintenance of anti-aircraft defense in the above waters, radar patrol, air defense in missile-prone areas (from the KR), assistance to forces Coastal Defense and Ground Forces operating in coastal areas, providing amphibious assaults. These are the tasks of the Fleet in BMZ.

            1. PLO
            PLO aircraft based on IL-96 - 60 pcs.
            Corvette PLO for the Black Sea Fleet and Baltic Fleet - 16 pcs.
            PLO frigate for the Northern Fleet and Pacific Fleet - 28 pcs.

            2. The fight against the enemy's NK.
            Su-30SM2 - 8 regiments.
            Diesel-electric submarines with VNEU - 40 pcs.
            DBK Bastion - the more, the better.

            3. Landing. The most painful place. Every war, since the time of Peter, is the same in the Baltic, the Black Sea Fleet, and in the North with the Far East. Always really necessary, always on improvised means.

            MDK hovercraft pr. 12322 "ZUBR" - the best choice. Pieces 100.
            No BDK and even more so UDC. These are not ships, these are targets.

            2) In the far sea zone
            3) Tasks in the ocean zone

            For now, limit yourself to multi-purpose frigates and new-type MAPLs. Small (6000-7000 tons), quiet, with CD on board. The boat is a hunter, capable of hitting the coast of the Kyrgyz Republic with special warheads. 40 pieces in 10 years. To neutralize them, the Americans will need to strain 60% of their naval capabilities. Will not be up to the Black Sea voyages.

            Everything is real and feasible.

            Forget SSBNs, as well as the protection of areas and everything connected with this. They are already under control, but they did not hit us. For Sarmat is our everything.
            1. saigon
              saigon 27 June 2022 15: 51
              0
              Well, it’s not always landings on anything. WWI did the Black Sea and Elpedifors (if I didn’t confuse the letters) the battalion on board and, in my opinion, a couple more 3 "guns, plus their own guns. So is the battalion of that army of the Republic of Ingushetia in 1000 almost bayonets.
              Several landing operations on the coast occupied by the enemy.
            2. bayard
              bayard 27 June 2022 22: 00
              +1
              Especially 60 Il-96 for PLO impressed. Also "Sarmat" to "Karakurt" and the rest can be neglected.
              1. Doctor
                Doctor 28 June 2022 08: 44
                0
                Especially 60 Il-96 for PLO impressed. Also "Sarmat" to "Karakurt" and the rest can be neglected.

                Yes thank you. IL-76 meant.
          2. DenVB
            DenVB 27 June 2022 16: 48
            0
            Quote: bayard
            Currently (data from international statistics) at domestic and foreign shipyards, ships under construction for the Russian Federation in terms of tonnage, exceed the tonnage of commercial ships under construction for the rest of the world.

            Where can you see such statistics?
            1. bayard
              bayard 27 June 2022 22: 05
              +2
              Not so long ago, the tonnage of ships under construction in the world was published, for the Russian Federation it was recruited at the expense of dozens of gas carriers, tankers and dry cargo ships under construction and contracted ("Zvezda", Korean and Chinese shipyards).
              1. frog
                frog 27 June 2022 22: 24
                +1
                Oh, "Star" ..... "Star" is a force, they will build it there ....
                1. bayard
                  bayard 27 June 2022 23: 19
                  0
                  They are trying ... that's just the Koreans ... that ...
                  1. frog
                    frog 29 June 2022 12: 58
                    +1
                    Well, who and how is trying there - I, unfortunately, know a little. So ..... From, in general, a good idea, they built an ordinary sawmill. With current managers, it cannot be otherwise. This week, representatives of ...... "the owner" ...... should have presented)) ..... During the wisest meeting recourse Even before these .... it begins to reach .... that skiing in the summer is so-so transport .....
                    1. bayard
                      bayard 29 June 2022 13: 38
                      0
                      The main shareholder of Zvezda is Rosneft, they need specialized vessels for their own needs. So this is not USC at all, which brings down any assigned business. But "Zvezda is still a shipyard under construction, which has not yet mastered the full production cycle, relying entirely on cooperation with South Korea. And recently there have been problems with it - the Koreans refused to conclude contracts for regular gas carriers, citing sanctions. And there is a threat that we will also be refused cooperation in the construction of ships on the Zvezda itself.
                      Obviously , the meeting will be about such threats .
                      And yes, skiing in the summer is so-so.
              2. DenVB
                DenVB 27 June 2022 22: 41
                0
                Quote: bayard
                Not so long ago, the tonnage of ships under construction in the world was published, for the Russian Federation it was recruited at the expense of dozens of gas carriers, tankers and dry cargo ships under construction and contracted ("Zvezda", Korean and Chinese shipyards).

                I would like to see. Perhaps again some tricks with statistics. For example, we chose a time when almost nothing was built in the world (there was such a moment during the pandemic), but something was built according to our orders - and now we have become a leader. For a while.
                1. bayard
                  bayard 27 June 2022 23: 24
                  0
                  That's pretty much how it happened. Indeed, we urgently needed a huge number of large-tonnage ships specialized for the Arctic, you can’t charter strangers there - ice, climate, insurance ... We have to build it ourselves (look at the Zvezda order portfolio) and order in Korea and China. And it is necessary to carry LNG, and light Arctic oil, and coal from the Yakut deposits, and to provide projects in the Arctic.
                  And yes - in the two years of the "pandemic" in the world, nobody really ordered merchant ships.
                  1. DenVB
                    DenVB 27 June 2022 23: 52
                    +3
                    Quote: bayard
                    And yes - in the two years of the "pandemic" in the world, nobody really ordered merchant ships.

                    They were not just not ordered, they were driven for scrap. Which, by the way, they soon regretted. But in the last two and a half years, a lot of surprising and inexplicable things have been happening in the world.
                    1. bayard
                      bayard 28 June 2022 00: 13
                      +3
                      Quote: DenVB
                      in the last two and a half years, a lot of amazing and inexplicable things have been happening in the world.

                      "I was going to die, but this face \\ ships-ships are in formation."
                      Much in the world is changing, but for us only after the war will there be clarity and clarity of perspective.
                      1. DenVB
                        DenVB 28 June 2022 00: 26
                        +2
                        Quote: bayard
                        Much in the world is changing, but for us only after the war will there be clarity and clarity of perspective.

                        One of the most beloved delusions of mankind. If there was no understanding of goals before the war, where will it come from after?
                      2. bayard
                        bayard 28 June 2022 08: 11
                        +5
                        The authorities are silent about goals, get confused in tasks and create the impression that everything is being done and planned according to an external signal.
                        Under Stalin, the science of "Logic" was taught in the Soviet Union ... it is obvious that this science passed its attention ... to many.
                        In order to set a goal and implement plans, we need a well-coordinated team of like-minded people, united by one higher goal ... A kind of "new type party" ...
                        Oh yes, it already happened, Lenin created, Stalin implemented ...
                        Let's talk about shipbuilding. Two years ago, two UDCs were laid in Kerch, funds were allocated for their construction (over 100 billion rubles) in full ... and not as usual with us ... Where is the UDC?
                        Their hulls should already rise on the stocks ... Question.
                        Plans were called to you, voiced ... and even allocated funds ...
                        At what level of sabotage do we have?
                        On the most key and trusted.
                        And they don't leave theirs with us.
                      3. Konnick
                        Konnick 28 June 2022 08: 32
                        0
                        Two years ago, two UDCs were laid in Kerch, funds were allocated for their construction (over 100 billion rubles) in full ... and not as usual with us ... Where is the UDC?

                        They laid it down too quickly ... that is. there was a concept, but whether there was a complete set of design documentation for the project is unknown. The money was allocated for the construction, and when was the money allocated for the design? Simultaneously? Then it is necessary to give time for designing, otherwise they laid it down ... they know how to solemnly lay it down here. As they say - "Let's go, I said, then you'll start ..."
      2. abc_alex
        abc_alex 27 June 2022 13: 11
        +9
        Quote: bayard
        25% of the military budget excited him lol, but the fact that the Navy has practically no modern ships does not surprise him?


        Just surprising. Even more than that, SURPRISING!!!! And it suggests that a huge part of the military budget goes nowhere. It dissolves in an endless series of projects and samples created for no clear reason, often simply due to a fashion trend.
        This is precisely what makes us think that our admirals themselves do not understand why and what kind of fleet they need.

        Quote: bayard
        And first of all, this is the notorious "engine curse" - we do not have ship and ship engines, industry and applied science cannot solve this problem after the break in industrial cooperation with Ukraine


        Maybe! And I would have decided long ago. If the admiral ranks did not want to "buy from the Germans", but thought with their brains. Both Kolomna and Peter could have issued ship power plants based on new units or Soviet backlogs 10 years ago. Only it was necessary to give them an ORDER 20 years ago. And do not sip through the lip that "the Germans are better."

        Quote: bayard
        And if we can actually make turbines, then the main questions are for ... running gears.


        Well, what did you think? After all, these products are truly unique for each project. How many projects do we have? Who will be associated with a single production of such a complex unit?

        Quote: bayard
        "A great blessing for the Navy and the Russian Federation as a whole" ...
        This diesel engine was bought by the Chinese under a license in France, it is not new, but it is quite worked out (we now have a diesel engine in general from the middle of the last century on Karakurt!).
        ...So let's USE it!

        Let's! But who should start it? Kolomna? Do they have an order from the fleet? From Russian Railways - yes, from power engineers - yes, even from Rosatom - yes. But from the fleet - no. Unless, of course, we do not count the whining demands "give immediately, give, give!!!" If we want to successfully steal someone else's project, then the plant will be at the end of the chain here. And in the beginning there should be the same admirals who will determine what exactly to steal, and scouts who will hang where they need to. And only then, according to the delivered drawings and samples, engineers and technologists will begin to work. Only this way and nothing else. And this should have been done not now, but 10 years ago.

        Quote: bayard
        What else would you like?


        First of all, I would like a clear answer from the admirals. WHY and WHAT fleet. Then order unified projects for each class of ships. Like platforms. And under this order for large series.
        1. bk0010
          bk0010 27 June 2022 16: 37
          0
          Quote: abc_alex
          Well, what did you think? After all, these products are truly unique for each project.
          Why don't they go electric? At the same time, there would be help in the tasks of the PLO.
          1. abc_alex
            abc_alex 27 June 2022 16: 45
            0
            Quote: bk0010
            Why don't they go electric? At the same time, there would be help in the tasks of the PLO.


            I read that the electric ship has a number of problems associated with low speed. But I can't say for sure.
          2. bayard
            bayard 27 June 2022 22: 27
            +5
            Quote: bk0010
            Why don't they go electric?

            China is moving to the fullest, not only to aircraft carriers and destroyers, but also to a new modification of the frigate type. 054 is being transferred to electric propulsion (a new version is being prepared).
            Why not with us?
            When everything is fine with the command, the management of industry and in government offices, the "partners" bring it up, and the authorities do not punish, what kind of construction of the Fleet, engine building and, in general, concepts and tasks can we talk about? The industry will insist on the need to build "innovative", "modular", unarmed, but "anti-piracy" belay ships ... and the command of the Fleet agree with this (because soon the pension, and a warm place on the board of directors, has already been proposed).
            The development of the budget does not imply the final result, and even more so - the responsibility for it.
      3. Vadmir
        Vadmir 27 June 2022 18: 37
        -2
        The armament of such a corvette with VI 1500 - 1700 tons:
        - UKSK for 8 - 12 cells,
        - HAK from submersible and BUGAS, because nothing large can be placed under the keel \ in the bulb,
        - "Package-NK",
        - "Pantsir-M"
        - gun 76 mm.
        - RLC "dm" and "cm" ranges.
        - possibly a helipad for landing, without a hangar.
        Everything ! At a price for all the pleasure of the order of 12 - 15 billion (one and a half "Karakurt").
        You outlined a flawed ship with weak air defense / missile defense, without a full-fledged GAS and a helicopter hangar. The events in Ukraine have already shown the importance of good air defense / missile defense in modern conditions. And a specialized anti-submarine without a full-fledged HAK and its own helicopter can fully search for submarines only in a group with a full-fledged corvette or frigate. Yes, the presence of an inexpensive MPK makes sense, and Zelenodolsk plant should pay attention to this, but not as a replacement, but as an addition to a full-fledged universal corvette.
        Projects 20380 and 20385 are not ideal, they have flaws and are more expensive, but they are in every way better than the ersatz ship you proposed.
        1. bayard
          bayard 27 June 2022 23: 07
          +2
          Quote: Vadmir
          You outlined a flawed ship with weak air defense / missile defense

          No, a balanced small anti-submarine ship BMZ has been proposed, the main task of which is to provide anti-submarine warfare for the naval base, the withdrawal of SSBNs and SSGNs from the bases, and anti-submarine warfare in the BMZ.
          Weak air defense?
          For the ship VI 1500 - 1700 tons?
          Are you seriously ?
          Or do you seriously think that 20380 is better?
          Take a closer look at the quality and cost of the Zaslon radar, and if you understand something in this ... just don’t tear your hair out of awareness.
          Quote: Vadmir
          without a full GAS

          GAK from a submersible GAS (on the foot) and BUGAS are not enough for you for a ship of this class? Which, by definition, are obliged to act in groups, because otherwise it does not happen in PLO?
          In addition, he will still have a deadly GAS, because "Package-NK" obliges to such.
          And don't worry about air defense - "Pantsir-M" is a very good air defense system, and these ships will operate near their native shores under the cover of base aviation. And yet, for understanding - "Pantsir-M", this is not at all a seared "Pantsir-S", its capabilities are much higher.
          Quote: Vadmir
          And a specialized anti-submarine without a full-fledged HAK and its own helicopter

          Vadim, you are describing the armament of a LARGE anti-submarine ship, and I am talking about a SMALL anti-submarine ship (PLO light corvette), which are required to operate as a group. At the same time, they still have a helipad, but not for basing, but for receiving cargo or refueling a helicopter during services. For such a group of MPKs (as a rule, a group of 4 MPKs should operate simultaneously) it is enough to give the leader a frigate, and the combat stability of the anti-submarine detachment will be balanced both in terms of air defense, and, if possible, basing a helicopter / com, and in repelling / defeating a surface enemy. But the basis of the PLO light forces in the BMZ should be a ship of just this class. For the number (for this kind of tasks) DOES MATTER.
          Quote: Vadmir
          Projects 20380 and 20385 are not ideal, they have flaws and are more expensive, but they are in every way better than the ersatz ship you proposed

          It is they who are the ersatz - recorvette / under-frigate. Too weak for a frigate, unbalanced and unseaworthy, has low autonomy, but at the same time ... fellow PRICE (!!!) is the dream of any embezzler and pest. At a price, they are superior to the frigate (!) Project 11356, and 2 - 2,5 times higher than the export (!) Price of a Chinese type frigate. 054A .
          After such a characteristic, do you still want such a miracle?
          Then I’ll add - low driving performance ... very low for 20385, an extremely expensive and disgustingly working air defense system with an extremely small ammo for such an expensive bandura, very low construction rates due to the industry’s inability to supply power plants in a timely manner and due to the high line-up density ...
          For the cost of a corvette 20380 with a radar station "Barrier" (these are now being built at the Amur Shipyard), you can order a Chinese frigate with our armament so that it will surpass the corvette 20385 and frigate 11356 combined in terms of combat capabilities! And in terms of air defense (twice as large BC as that of 11356), and in terms of anti-aircraft defense (having a SAC from 20380 \ 20385, any number of PLURs in 4 UKKS and a helicopter), and in terms of strike capabilities. But the opportunity to get such a ship in the period 2014 - 2022. , request did not use .
          And this is at a time when military shipbuilding of ships of a class above RTOs has generally ceased in our country.
          Why is that ?
          Who's guilty ?
          The resulting corvettes for the Navy, pr. 20380 and 20385, are not a candle to God, not a hell of a poker. But they are already there ... Well ... a suitcase without a handle is always a pity ... so much is connected with it ...
        2. PSih2097
          PSih2097 28 June 2022 00: 35
          +1
          Quote: Vadmir
          Projects 20380 and 20385 are not ideal, they have flaws and are more expensive, but they are in every way better than the ersatz ship you proposed.

          as an option - alteration / refinement of project 996, regarding the PLO, return to alteration / refinement of the BOD of project 1155M ... Why be smart about something? Everything was invented before us, we just need further development...
      4. user
        user 28 June 2022 15: 00
        -1
        How many beeches, but the post is about nothing. Although the author wrote correctly about the funding, enough funds are allocated to the Navy to ensure the protection of the coast, and not to put Thor on the deck of the ship, because he only has air defense systems for MANPADS.
        When you answer, please note that I am not responsible for the development plans of the Russian Navy.
      5. Alexander Moiseev
        Alexander Moiseev 15 July 2022 12: 26
        +1
        A brilliant response to a recruiting agent of US and British influence! Keep it up! And feel free to publish articles in defense of the fleet yourself. As the saying goes: "We'll drink everything, but we won't disgrace the Fleet!"
        1. bayard
          bayard 15 July 2022 16: 03
          0
          Thank you for the kind words . hi
  3. Nafanya from the sofa
    Nafanya from the sofa 27 June 2022 05: 53
    -1
    Oh my God! Another "expert" of the fleet showed up. crying
    1. Sergey Aleksandrovich
      Sergey Aleksandrovich 27 June 2022 20: 43
      +4
      At least, he was the first to note the unsuitability of small-caliber artillery for firing along the coast and the absence of drones and helicopters for attacking and reconnaissance of enemy coastal positions. Previous authors, as one, stood up for completely unarmed landing craft, relying on support from outside, which in reality will not be available in time. Aircraft and missiles will not be in time when enemy long-range self-propelled guns and multiple rocket launchers begin to shoot at landing craft and quickly leave their positions.
      1. Nafanya from the sofa
        Nafanya from the sofa 28 June 2022 05: 00
        -1
        At least he was the first to note the unsuitability of small-caliber artillery for firing along the coast

        And also, excuse me, "Volga flows into the Caspian Sea."

        Battleship New Jersey shelling Lebanon (1984)
        1. Sergey Aleksandrovich
          Sergey Aleksandrovich 28 June 2022 09: 29
          +1
          Sorry, these are representations of the last century. Today, a cluster or guided 152-mm projectile can inflict very significant damage, comparable to the actions of large-caliber artillery.
          1. Nafanya from the sofa
            Nafanya from the sofa 28 June 2022 09: 50
            0
            Sorry dear! But you somehow lost the essence of our discussion. You say one thing, then another. Decide please. drinks
            1. Sergey Aleksandrovich
              Sergey Aleksandrovich 28 June 2022 10: 01
              +2
              It turned out to be unexpected for me that the Kondo Moremans do not have the capabilities of artillery at all, well, they do not at all. The authors of articles about the fleet do not know how a 130-mm naval projectile differs from a land-based 152-mm cluster or guided one. In the ideology of presenting the middle of the last century, hence the unwillingness to install modern guns on ships like the 152-mm Coalition. This is what you are going to counter from unarmed landing craft to the fire of modern enemy howitzers with 155-mm guided and cluster munitions, where the ranges already exceed 40 km.
              1. Nafanya from the sofa
                Nafanya from the sofa 28 June 2022 10: 05
                0
                That's what you're going to oppose

                I'm not going to oppose anything anywhere. And the "opuses" of Mr. Timokhin & Co. I try not to comment. Like the article above.
        2. Scharnhorst
          Scharnhorst 30 June 2022 08: 41
          -1
          Well, here you farted into a puddle! Lebanon is not even Ukraine, only Easter Island is more defenseless. Let this battleship now approach about. Serpentine...
          1. Nafanya from the sofa
            Nafanya from the sofa 30 June 2022 09: 11
            0
            Well, here you farted into a puddle!

            Well, you're just dumb.
  4. Eug
    Eug 27 June 2022 05: 55
    +4
    As far as I understand, the Russian fleet is more focused on a global war and the lion's share of finances goes specifically to nuclear submarines, SSBNs, diesel-electric submarines and other means that are poorly involved in the NWO. The participation of the fleet in a local conflict comes down to securing the flank of the coastal grouping of ground forces - at least that was the case in the Great Patriotic War, and it is now. But this task is by no means for the entire fleet, but for its PART. And the Germans had an excellent tool for solving it - relatively cheap landing barges with a relatively shallow draft, equipped with strong air defense, and in addition to combat and transport tasks of supplying troops. Maybe it is worth creating analogues of such barges at the modern technical level, at least for the Black Sea Fleet and the Baltic Fleet? And something similar, but more seaworthy for the Mediterranean Sea and Pacific Fleet (Sea of ​​Okhotsk, Kuriles)?. But large and expensive UDCs - for overseas tasks - at least for the time being left to minke whales and China?
    1. Adrey
      Adrey 27 June 2022 08: 19
      0
      Quote: Eug
      And the Germans had an excellent tool for solving it - relatively cheap landing barges with a relatively shallow draft.

      Now the reality is slightly different. Watch the video of the Raptors and Chamois nightmare.
      Quote: Eug
      equipped with strong air defense

      Quote: Eug
      Maybe it is worth creating analogues of such barges at the modern technical level, at least for the Black Sea Fleet and the Baltic Fleet?

      For the presence of the Adekbander air defense muzzle in modern conditions, we will come to a corvette, or at least to an analogue of the IPC with enhanced air defense due to anti-aircraft defense (still a corvette, albeit specific) hi
      PS: The editor is apparently crazy laughing. In writing a comment, everything shows correctly, but in the final text of the last paragraph, complete crap and is not corrected request. Make up your own mind
      1. DenVB
        DenVB 27 June 2022 10: 25
        +2
        Quote: Adrey
        Make up your own mind

        "For the availability of adequate air defense." The secret must be known.
        1. Adrey
          Adrey 27 June 2022 13: 35
          +1
          Quote: DenVB
          Make up your own mind

          "For the availability of adequate air defense." The secret must be known.

          Exactly. Thanks hi
    2. DenVB
      DenVB 27 June 2022 10: 30
      +5
      Quote: Eug
      And the Germans had an excellent tool for solving it - relatively cheap landing barges with a relatively shallow draft, equipped with strong air defense, and in addition to combat and transport tasks of supplying troops.

      Not barges, of course, but the idea of ​​converting civilian ships into combat units has been voiced a long time ago. Used dry cargo ships and tankers are inexpensive and have a very decent deadweight, which allows them to be armed well. Alas, the idea is completely ignored by our military leadership. Instead, specialized rescue tugs and boats defenseless against air threats are sent practically into battle.
      1. Mikhail3
        Mikhail3 27 June 2022 11: 57
        +3
        Considering that modern weapon systems are compact, do not create monstrous returns and do not require a complete redesign of the ship, the idea is viable. But the price! Awful low price! For military shipbuilding in peacetime, such an affront is unacceptable)
  5. rocket757
    rocket757 27 June 2022 06: 07
    +3
    The fleet must be combat-ready, and in order to ensure this very combat readiness, it is paramount that in peacetime the command regularly assesses changes in the geopolitical situation, technical trends, methods of warfare, and prioritizes risks.

    All the same, the concept of the development of the Armed Forces and the fleet cannot fluctuate / change, at a speed ... in general, they do not have time for anyone's Wishlist! A large society is inert, and even such complex "mechanisms" as the Armed Forces, especially such large countries, will change / modernize even more slowly!
    And yes, something will always not be the way someone wanted it to be !!!
    So, you can guess that we have something WRONG!!!
    So how should it be???
  6. Sergey-1950
    Sergey-1950 27 June 2022 06: 16
    +2
    Explanatory article. Thanks to the author. Everything is lined up.
  7. Vadmir
    Vadmir 27 June 2022 06: 23
    +12
    The fleet has 4 strategic tasks:
    1 provides nuclear deterrence (there are ballistic missile submarines for this).
    To solve their problems, our SSBNs must be protected from enemy submarines and ships by their own ships and submarines.
    2 Protects the country from the enemy fleet.
    3 The fleet must assist its ground forces and air forces in conducting combat operations.
    If Russia wants to be a Great Power I will add one more strategic task.
    4 The fleet must project force on any point of the world's oceans and any coast.
    It would be possible to add the 5th task of hunting for enemy SSBNs in order to prevent the possibility of delivering a nuclear strike from under the water, but now our fleet is not capable of this, but I hope someday this will change.
    Only one of these problems came to the attention of the author. But he considers the costs for the entire fleet as a whole. Based on the similar logic of the author of the Strategic Missile Forces, we do not need anything at all, because they, unlike the fleet, do not participate in the war at all.
    And in general, the Ukrainian war is just an episode, now it is very relevant, but there is a global confrontation, and in this confrontation the fleet has its own and very important role.
    The fleet is currently participating in the war with Ukraine. If there were no fleet, there would be no blockade of the ports of Ukraine. There would be no capture of Serpent's Island. Ukraine would not keep its troops in the Odessa region, waiting for the landing.
    But it just so happened that the Black Sea Fleet is not the most powerful of our fleets. The fleet needs to be strengthened, and above all with large ships, destroyers, frigates and corvettes. An operation in Ukraine does not need aircraft carriers, and the UDC, of ​​course, could launch drones, but they can take off from the Crimea with no less success - their flight range allows. Another thing is the threat of landing and its landing, here, of course, the UDC would not hurt, but the classic BDK can do a lot. And it is quite possible that we will still see an amphibious assault somewhere in Izmail or even near Odessa in order to stretch the enemy’s front and divert his attention. But this is expedient only in the case when the ground forces come directly to Odessa.
    As I understood from what I read, the author is behind some strange fleet consisting of boats, RTOs and UDCs. But UDCs need serious cover precisely from large ships. Boats cannot solve this problem in principle. Far from their shores, they cannot be used at all - they will not have enough range, autonomy or seaworthiness. At their own coast, what can boats do from what aviation cannot?
    1. prodi
      prodi 27 June 2022 06: 33
      -3
      Quote: Vadmir
      But he considers the costs for the entire fleet as a whole. Based on the similar logic of the author of the Strategic Missile Forces, we do not need anything at all, because they, unlike the fleet, do not participate in the war at all.

      just the logic of the author is completely different: in this situation, the fleet, which can "fight" funds, needs to be allocated twice more, especially if you build ships of the far zone
    2. ycuce234-san
      ycuce234-san 27 June 2022 07: 04
      -2
      Quote: Vadmir
      As I understood from what I read, the author is behind some strange fleet consisting of boats, RTOs and UDCs.


      First you need to learn how to sell your ability to massively build modern ships (starting with small ships) for the money of foreign customers. That is why the continental French are so successful in shipbuilding - they build to order for foreigners, with their money, and accumulate experience in building and operating and using by customers without burdening the budget. Personnel experience can be obtained by training officers and sailors on such ships in foreign fleets.
      1. Vadmir
        Vadmir 27 June 2022 07: 19
        +5
        First you need to learn how to sell your ability to massively build modern ships (starting with small ships) for the money of foreign customers.
        Do you know that Russia is under sanctions? Right now we can sell our ships to a very limited number of countries.
        Many people can build a mosquito fleet themselves.
        Personnel experience can be obtained by training officers and sailors on such ships in foreign fleets.
        An extremely controversial statement, to say the least.
        1. ycuce234-san
          ycuce234-san 27 June 2022 19: 13
          -1
          Well, here it is necessary to offer something that the buyers themselves cannot do well, and Western countries did not buy large ships even before the sanctions - not so much has changed here.
          Regarding internships, the legislation just needs to be improved. Well, recently it was completely by historical standards - the Germans studied in the pre-war Union, and the Americans and we studied rocket science from the defeated Germans; and it has always been like this in history: sometimes they studied with foreigners, and sometimes they also studied with us. I have not proposed anything new since Peter the Great in the fleet - everything in the matter of adopting innovations has already been tested and tested back in the era of the Varangians.
    3. abc_alex
      abc_alex 27 June 2022 13: 24
      +1
      Quote: Vadmir
      3 The fleet must assist its ground forces and air forces in conducting combat operations.


      It is precisely about the inability to do this that the author writes. In principle, he is right, it is rather strange to have a fleet in the World Cup, not to control its coast. And it’s really strange sometimes to read about ships, whose main and main task, in fact, is to protect themselves. Air defense / missile defense is good. Excellent even Caliber\Onyx. But do our ships have an adequate means of controlling the coast? Previously, fleets had large caliber guns. The United States has ships with dozens of Tomahawk launchers, since the budget allows. And we have? How can our fleet help the shore? Calibers? But for this you do not need to keep him in the World Cup, you can shoot from the Caspian Sea or from the Volga. Onyxes on the ground? Aren't we broke?
      Maybe it's better to really make a platform for the Ka-52K? Or to equip a fleet of launchers for drones based on "product 305"?
      1. common man
        common man 27 June 2022 14: 53
        +2
        Quote: abc_alex
        But for this you don’t need to keep him in the World Cup, you can shoot from the Caspian or from the Volga.

        In Ukraine, yes it is possible from the Caspian Sea, But in England or France it probably won’t pull, it’s necessary from the Black Sea.
        1. abc_alex
          abc_alex 27 June 2022 15: 25
          +1
          And for this there are Tu-160 and Tu-95 with Kh-101 5,5 thousand km range. You can hit Britain from the Chelyabinsk region.
  8. Alex 1970
    Alex 1970 27 June 2022 06: 26
    +2
    what society would like to receive from the Navy, oyo! During perestroika, they also wanted to put the army under the control of society, how did it end? Can the state, represented by the Ministry of Defense and the commander-in-chief, decide what it needs from the fleet? I think that would be more correct.
  9. mark1
    mark1 27 June 2022 06: 32
    +6
    Yes, for as long as flotophiles can fight with flotophobes, but the cruiser "Moskva" should not have received two light missiles on board, and even sinking from them (considering that their ceiling ships V.I. up to 3000/5000 tons) is a national shame.
    Of course, I can’t see a lot of things from the couch, but the professional qualities of the sailors raise questions (amateurish, illiterate, but still questions)
    And by the way, I wrote more than once about the need for stationary combat platforms - Zmeiny Island and the Chornomorskneftegaz platforms, here they are conceptual prototypes, even the theoretical possibility of placing weapons on them makes both Ukraine and NATO nervous.
    1. Dante Alighieri
      Dante Alighieri 27 June 2022 07: 18
      +4
      but the cruiser "Moskva" should not have received two light missiles on board, and even sinking from them (considering that their ceiling is V.I. ships up to 3000/5000 tons) is a national shame.

      Dear, what are you talking about? Didn't you hear the official representative of the Defense Ministry, General Konashenkov? There were no rockets, there was spontaneous combustion. Dot. Everything else is disinformation, slander against our armed forces and intrigues of enemies. Or are you, like the author from among them, spreading decadent moods? lol wassat
      ps If this is my humor, please do not be offended
      1. AdAstra
        AdAstra 27 June 2022 11: 52
        +1
        "There were no rockets, there was spontaneous combustion."
        Yes, spontaneous combustion, self-detonation, self-flooding are solid paranormal phenomena, just connect Mulder and Scali to the investigation.
  10. riwas
    riwas 27 June 2022 06: 40
    0
    The failure of the old concept of the Russian fleet

    It is necessary to stretch the legs along the clothes. We will not be able to build large ships yet. But destroyers must master. As life shows, you need strong long-range air defense. We need unmanned anti-submarine ships like the United States.
    Small-tonnage boats, with the ability to launch UAVs and kamikaze drones, as well as attack helicopters, should be the means by which the fleet will be able to clear the coast.

    Aviation and means of coastal defense of the enemy are quite capable of repelling such an attack. Therefore, to implement this concept, you must first gain air superiority, suppress air defenses and destroy coastal defenses.
    1. Sergey Aleksandrovich
      Sergey Aleksandrovich 27 June 2022 14: 10
      -1
      There is no desire and will to build large ships. We would like to resume the construction of project 1123 helicopter carriers ("Moscow" and "Leningrad"), even if again with steam turbines, since there are no others ready. The sides and bottom can be reinforced, following the model of modern tankers, in order to increase resistance to missile hits.
  11. Dante Alighieri
    Dante Alighieri 27 June 2022 06: 43
    +8
    Well, what can I say ... the epigraph to the article could easily serve as a proverb: "in someone else's eye we see a straw, in our own we do not even notice a log." laughing

    I just don’t understand one thing: why did the author decide that the fleet should perform only those tasks dictated by the conduct of the NWO? Do not misunderstand, I am also skeptical about the idea of ​​protecting the economic interests of the Russian corporate segment somewhere in Africa, but at the same time, no one has canceled the very real task of preventing the deployment of enemy SSBNs and MAPLs in our territorial waters. And how the Caspian flotilla and the Mistral can help the author in resolving this issue, for example, is absolutely not clear to me.
    1. Vadmir
      Vadmir 27 June 2022 06: 49
      +3
      no one has canceled the very real task of preventing the deployment of enemy SSBNs and MAPLs in our territorial waters.
      One note, enemy SSBNs do not need to deploy in our territorial waters. Even to reduce flight time, this is not rational, it is easier to bring boats with Tomahawks equipped with special warheads to the shore. And yes, I agree, the mosquito fleet and UDC is a very strange combination.
      1. ailcat
        ailcat 27 June 2022 17: 11
        +1
        SSBNs may not be necessary, but the enemy MAPLs with great pleasure are on duty in narrow spaces on the exit routes of our submarine missile carriers. And they just need to be driven from there. And to drive systematically and without reference to the time of passage of our boats.
        And the mosquito fleet and UDC work very well against "macaques" - that is, an enemy that is much (many times, if not dozens of times) inferior in terms of return fire capabilities. Alas, Russia all its life has to deal with opponents of a close, and even superior level - that is, the American concept is hardly realizable for us.
        PS
        But this does not exclude the usefulness of the mosquito fleet as a carrier platform for strike weapons (especially obsolete ones), just as BDKs have greater versatility than integrated supply ships (with a competent design approach, of course), including targeted use in a critical situation.
        1. Vadmir
          Vadmir 27 June 2022 17: 45
          +1
          Alas, Russia all its life has to deal with opponents of a close, and even superior level - that is, the American concept is hardly realizable for us.
          Nobody tried to implement it, Russia, at least since 1905, professed a different concept - Don't touch me. Accordingly, the fleet was built as a purely defensive one.
          I'm not sure if this is the correct approach. On the one hand, we already have a lot of territory and resources, on the other hand, the inability to resist the Americans in third countries deprived us of allies and initiative. A great power, if it wants to be one, sometimes has to wage local and proxy wars, and preferably not at its own borders. but a little further. This requires a powerful ocean and aircraft carrier fleet.
          Unfortunately, in modern conditions, the mosquito fleet is not able to perform protective functions either, it will be quickly knocked out by enemy aircraft.
          enemy MAPLs with great pleasure are on duty in narrow spaces on the exit routes of our submarine missile carriers. And they just need to be driven from there
          Yes, this is true, but again, the mosquito fleet cannot fulfill this task, here we need ships no smaller than a corvette, capable of combining both anti-aircraft defense systems and an anti-submarine helicopter, and be able to defend themselves from enemy ships, aircraft and missiles. In the mosquito fleet format, you cannot create universal ships, only highly specialized ones. The Ukrainian events have shown with all obviousness that our RTOs with their weak missile defense / air defense systems cannot act independently. We need universal ships.
          1. ailcat
            ailcat 28 June 2022 07: 15
            0
            Quote: Vadmir
            ah, it is, but again, the mosquito fleet cannot complete this task
            Where did you see this in my comment? The mosquito fleet is good in the role of shock, maximum radio intelligence.
            But you rightly noted that RTOs are a failed idea (it has been a failure for 30-40 years already) precisely because it is no longer a mosquito (!) Fleet, and not yet a full-fledged warship. That is, de facto, we are building missile boats (in terms of functionality) in the dimension of small anti-submarines (but without their self-defense capabilities) - nonsense!
            PS
            But it is quite possible to have an IPC with the capabilities of RTOs. Having equipped them with UKKS, normally used for PLUR and, if necessary, for Caliber.
  12. kristAl
    kristAl 27 June 2022 07: 09
    0
    I want to note right away that I am not an opponent of large ships in principle. But I consider it a big mistake to ignore priorities - spending huge money on such huge ships in a situation where we have not solved more priority tasks.

    The author can ask how much the Russian Federation has repaired and built large ships, and how many have it launched into the mosquito fleet, which does not have seaworthiness at all?
    1. Ka-52
      Ka-52 27 June 2022 08: 01
      0
      and how much she lowered to the mosquito fleet, which does not have seaworthiness at all

      question: what was more useful in the special operation in Ukraine - the frigates of the 11356 series and the RTOs of the 21631 series (it is clear that you consider them to be the "mosquito" fleet) or the cruiser "Moskva" with excellent seaworthiness?
      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 27 June 2022 09: 20
        +5
        Quote: Ka-52
        question: what was more useful in the special operation in Ukraine - the frigates of the 11356 series and the RTOs of the 21631 series (it is clear that you consider them to be the "mosquito" fleet) or the cruiser "Moskva" with excellent seaworthiness?

        Oddly enough, it is possible that the "Moskva" was still used - it seems to have been used as an ersatz-DRLO, and in this perspective, it was undoubtedly more useful than from the Caliber platforms (which you can launch even from a submarine, even from pier)
        1. AlexHafele
          AlexHafele 27 June 2022 16: 25
          0
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          Quote: Ka-52
          question: what was more useful in the special operation in Ukraine - the frigates of the 11356 series and the RTOs of the 21631 series (it is clear that you consider them to be the "mosquito" fleet) or the cruiser "Moskva" with excellent seaworthiness?

          Oddly enough, it is possible that the "Moskva" was still used - it seems to have been used as an ersatz-DRLO, and in this perspective, it was undoubtedly more useful than from the Caliber platforms (which you can launch even from a submarine, even from pier)

          The meaning of AWACS in the FAR review.
          Moscow could not control the space below 1000 meters above Ukraine (near the coast, even more inland).
          In war conditions, even military transport aircraft could fly at such a height.

          What nonsense are you writing.
          1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
            Andrei from Chelyabinsk 27 June 2022 17: 09
            +1
            Quote: AlexHafele
            The meaning of AWACS in the FAR review.
            Moscow could not control the space below 1000 meters above Ukraine

            In your opinion, did all the downed MiG-29s of the Armed Forces of Ukraine fly below a kilometer? You are mistaken again, some of the aircraft were shot down in air battles, these are slightly different heights. In addition, Moscow was probably trying to control the approaches to the Serpentine. And yes...
            In your opinion, the AWACS aircraft both took off and turned on the radar. Let it be known to you that, strange as it may sound to you, in a large number of combat situations, the main means of reconnaissance of the AWACS aircraft is passive RTR reconnaissance, and the radar is used for additional reconnaissance of targets identified in another way
            1. AlexHafele
              AlexHafele 27 June 2022 17: 59
              +1
              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              In your,

              In your opinion, AWACS aircraft

              Ask Alexey to explain what was discussed (comment below).
        2. Alexey RA
          Alexey RA 27 June 2022 16: 55
          +2
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          Oddly enough, but it is possible that the "Moscow" is still - it seems to have been used as an ersatz AWACS

          Rather, like a radar ship to expand the field of view on the MV by moving the radar closer to the enemy - like the American EM at Okinawa or the British Sheffield at the Falklands.
        3. Ka-52
          Ka-52 28 June 2022 10: 33
          +1
          Oddly enough, but it is possible that, nevertheless, "Moskva" - it seems to have been used as an ersatz-DRLO and in this perspective it was undoubtedly more useful

          Her 3P41 with its performance characteristics could give little to AWACS. Well, unless he gave a picture of the area of ​​\uXNUMXb\uXNUMXbthe sea between Primorsky to Zatoka. And then, given its fate, its functionality turned out to be zero.
      2. ailcat
        ailcat 28 June 2022 07: 26
        -3
        Of course, “Moscow” has brought more benefits.
        For just under the conditions you describe, one ground division (with a cost and crew less than one RTO) could perform exactly the same task as all 21631 and 11356 combined (and there would be no need to put on a performance with a demonstration of the capabilities of RTOs).
        Unlike the launch of "calibers", a single ship with a slightly updated radar, which continuously for two months limited the possibilities of air support for Ukraine from Romania and in passing blocked the supply of weapons to Ukraine by sea - there was simply nothing to replace.
        1. Ka-52
          Ka-52 28 June 2022 10: 16
          +1
          Of course, “Moscow” has brought more benefits.

          Moscow could only sink ineptly, and this benefited only the Ukrainians as a PR victory.
          ground division (cost and crew less than one RTO) could perform exactly the same task as all 21631 and 11356

          ground division of what? Iskanderov-K? Firstly, the standard 3M-15 is cheaper by a multiple of R-500. Secondly, before the start of the JI, they were produced 50 times more than the R-500. Thirdly, if it is possible to use the entire range of guided weapons, then it should be used. And the Black Sea Fleet played the first fiddle here in terms of the number of launches.
          two months limiting the possibilities of air support for Ukraine from Romania

          in what way and what kind of support by Romania did our cruiser limit? Except moral.
          casually blocking the supply of weapons to Ukraine by sea

          and what, sea convoys with weapons went to Ukraine? Firstly, they were blocked by the Ukrainians themselves, having mined the waters of their own ports. Secondly, the hypothetical convoys would not have been guarded (remember the Montreux Treaty), so any military patrol boat, and not a missile cruiser, could block them.
          1. ailcat
            ailcat 28 June 2022 14: 51
            -3
            Quote: Ka-52
            Moscow could only sink ineptly
            After almost two months of successful duty.

            Quote: Ka-52
            ground division of what? Iskanderov-K?
            Why not Sarmat right away? No, nuacho - to walk like that (if the comparison of the incomparable is the only way to "defeat" the opponent).
            One division of "Caliber" on wheeled chassis is 24 missiles on launchers (like three RTOs. Only the cost of a division, together with a radar and launcher vehicle, is quite a bit higher than that of one Karakurt).

            Quote: Ka-52
            in what way and what kind of support by Romania did our cruiser limit?
            For you, it may be a discovery - but part of the Ukrainian Air Force managed to hide in Romania. Some of the moments transferred by the Europeans to help Ukraine are also based there. And the "Moscow" locator had the imprudence to record their takeoff from Romanian airfields (no, it could not shoot down - but warn our units so that they disperse, take cover, or declare an air defense alert - completely).

            Quote: Ka-52
            and what, sea convoys with weapons went to Ukraine?
            This question of yours is most accurately answered by an anecdote:
            The peasant prays to God, he has been praying earnestly for more than a day:
            - Lord, send rain on my fields, I will be grateful forever, I will begin to live righteously ...
            The Lord had mercy, sent rain to water the fields of the peasant.
            - Oh, that's it, don't, Lord, it's already raining.
            1. Ka-52
              Ka-52 29 June 2022 04: 36
              +1
              One Caliber division on wheeled chassis

              calibers on wheeled chassis? everything is clear, you can not read further ....
              1. ailcat
                ailcat 30 June 2022 13: 24
                0
                Here - about "cartoons": https://topwar.ru/91365-proekt-mobilnogo-beregovogo-raketnogo-kompleksa-kalibr-m-club-m.html
                But this is no longer a "cartoon": https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/48/Club-M_at_MAKS-2007.JPG/1280px-Club-M_at_MAKS-2007.JPG

                Here it is, with 4 launchers for "calibers" (there are 6 in the pictures, but it all depends on the amount of alterations to the original Iskander chassis) - in terms of modern prices, it should have cost about 1,5 billion per launcher (it is clear that plus- minus the bast shoes, since the Moscow Region did not purchase this complex in the end). Let's add a control vehicle (even if it is not directly coupled to the Bastion - the cost is likely to be close). How much should it end up being? I think 10-12 billionaires per division.
                And now we open the data on contracts for Karakurt (you can also Buyans at the same time, they also shot) and look at the amount of orders for the construction of RTOs. We get the main series of 8-10 billion per ship with 8 launchers for "calibers".

                If you have read this far, you have betrayed yourself. Because to understand the meaning of what is written, you need at least a little thought.
                1. Ka-52
                  Ka-52 1 July 2022 07: 06
                  0
                  Here it is, with 4 launchers for "calibers" (there are 6 in the pictures, but it all depends on the amount of alterations of the original Iskander chassis)

                  there will always be someone who will start dragging pictures from the Internet and assure that this equipment has been put into service, that this equipment exists and has been delivered to the Armed Forces in commercial quantities, and in general there is a worldwide conspiracy to kill the ground forces and promote the contribution of the navy. Well, not seriously....
                  1. ailcat
                    ailcat 1 July 2022 09: 00
                    0
                    What far-reaching conclusions from what was not.
                    Which, in fact, was required to prove.
                    1. Ka-52
                      Ka-52 1 July 2022 09: 22
                      0
                      and what is proven? That there are no mobile platforms in the troops today?
  13. Whatman
    Whatman 27 June 2022 07: 50
    +2
    A bad head does not give rest to the legs. If you don't have a brain, you will suffer. The size of the fleet means nothing here
  14. ban
    ban 27 June 2022 07: 59
    +4
    Rare bullshit though wassat
    And who will cover the helicopter carrier from air strikes or anti-ship missiles? Or PL? Small boats with drones?
    Recall the huge mosquito fleet of the USSR. In terms of the number of personnel, we were comparable to the first fleets in the world, and in terms of the number of formations, headquarters and admirals, we were ahead of the rest. Did it help a lot in the Great Patriotic War? The mosquito fleet is also a VERY expensive fleet!

    The frigate should come ashore and engage in an artillery duel with towed howitzers?


    Imagine, for this purpose, artillery KR and EM existed in the USSR, and they were replaced by project 956, which our "naval commanders" ravaged to the root.

    Suppose the enemy has placed howitzers 20 km from the coastline. And at a distance of 30 km, an armored group was formed, which dispersed throughout a residential area. Several MLRS installations were also located there. Conducting a landing operation in such conditions is suicide.

    Ask the Americans if they have such experience (Tarawa, Omaha). Yes, and we have - landings in Feodosia, Novorossiysk, Kerch.
    Only after all, for this it is necessary to fight in full force, and not to carry out the NWO, which is mired in muddy agreements with the Hohlonazis.

    If trying to inflict damage on the enemy by 100 million, we put our combat unit, which costs 1 billion, at high risk, other things being equal, we will lose such a war.
    And vice versa - if we use a cheaper means to destroy a combat unit for 1 billion, this brings us closer to victory


    And how then to evaluate the impact of Caliber or Iskander on the base of mercenaries?

    In general, briefly summarizing. There are no or almost no real sailors among our admirals, they are just officials in uniform. BP is fictitious, the main thing is parades.
    Naval aviation pros.ali. There is no intelligible shipbuilding program, all the processes are run by "respectable people", whose main goal is the sawmill. Further it is possible to enumerate for a long time.
    That's what you need to write about, and not cast a shadow over the wattle fence with stupid discussions about the need for certain classes of ships
    1. abc_alex
      abc_alex 27 June 2022 13: 32
      0
      Quote: ban
      And who will cover the helicopter carrier from air strikes or anti-ship missiles? Or PL? Small boats with drones?


      What aviation? Coastal? So does anyone deny the importance of air defense systems? But here they recently scoffed about Thor being lashed to the deck. Isn't that the answer to your question? If we approach the shore, isn't it easier to provide air defense through floating platforms with Thors and Shells installed on decks? Of course, a large powerful radar is required at the heart of this business. But in theory, it can be on the helicopter carrier itself. The shells initially have the ability to combine into a single network with the radar of the S-300 and S-400 complex.
      Or maybe a specialized air defense frigate based on a unified project.
      Am I mistaken?
      1. ban
        ban 27 June 2022 14: 11
        +2
        A specialized air defense frigate is too curly for us, it should also be an anti-aircraft defense, well, no one canceled strikes on surface and ground targets. So Kasatonov turns out. Only they need a dozen three or four, something like that. And floating platforms, this, excuse me, is not quite right. Moreover, our next enemy will not be Ukraine at all
        1. abc_alex
          abc_alex 27 June 2022 15: 43
          0
          And station wagons like Moscow are not curly? By "platform" I mean a universal hull that allows you to install an air defense module on itself, expanding the capabilities of a specialized complex on a ship. By itself, the complex can be installed on the same helicopter carrier, in fact, the S-400 - Pantsir link works in the same way.
          1. ban
            ban 27 June 2022 16: 05
            +1
            We get Peter the Great - there is also S-300 + Dagger
            Yes, and Moscow is not a station wagon, but a highly specialized ship, sharpened for strikes on the NC
            1. abc_alex
              abc_alex 27 June 2022 16: 49
              0
              Peter carried both air defense and a strike missile system. Plus, he was his own arsenal. I'm talking about the fact that the central ship-helicopter carrier carries a radar complex, but he needs it anyway ...
      2. Sergey Aleksandrovich
        Sergey Aleksandrovich 27 June 2022 14: 17
        -2
        Just a unified project can be built, for example, on the basis of the ancient helicopter carriers of project 1123, they had a large wide hull, conducive to diversity, and a high superstructure.
  15. Vladimir Michailovich
    Vladimir Michailovich 27 June 2022 08: 08
    -5
    The author has clearly jumped off the thread - a comparison is being made of two worthless instruments of war - the Tu-160 and the "ocean nuclear missile fleet". The country does not need anything else. As recent events show, this entire arsenal is useless. It is also possible to launch a missile launcher from a dry cargo ship or IL-76. The total number of missiles in a salvo will only increase and the launch cost will drop hundreds of times.
    The problem is different, without a developed industry, there is no modern army, no matter what concept is taken as its basis. And a developed industry cannot be built on the export of resources, and the latter is the basis of the current political regime. Thus, the circle is closed.
  16. Dimax-nemo
    Dimax-nemo 27 June 2022 08: 25
    +5
    Uh ..... and who told the author that the next war would be a repetition of "this" same scenario? A war with NATO will require other ships of a "different caliber". Contrasting Tu-160 and frigates is generally ridiculous. Especially if you remember that the Tu-160 will not be able to do ANYTHING to an enemy fighter. Nothing at all. Frigate - how lucky.
    Even in "this" scenario. But who prevented the construction of landing ships? Minesweepers? Frigates and corvettes to cover all this from the air, at least to increase the number of naval coastal fighters? How many of these do KChF have now?
    Yes, delivering a nuclear missile strike is the most important task of the Navy from the point of view of the country's leadership, and no money is spared for its implementation. Nuclear deterrence, however. It is the SSBNs that give our nuclear forces strategic stability, because they still need to be found.
    I agree that the Caliber was somewhat "overwhelmed", well, and there were reasons for that - the INF Treaty, which operated until recently.
    1. AlexHafele
      AlexHafele 27 June 2022 09: 26
      0
      Quote: Dimax-Nemo
      Contrasting Tu-160 and frigates is generally ridiculous. Especially if you remember that the Tu-160 will not be able to do ANYTHING to an enemy fighter. Nothing at all. Frigate - how lucky.

      The Tu-160 can launch missiles while over the territory of the Russian Federation - far beyond the range of enemy fighters.
      1. Alexey RA
        Alexey RA 27 June 2022 12: 40
        +2
        Quote: AlexHafele
        The Tu-160 can launch missiles while over the territory of the Russian Federation - far beyond the range of enemy fighters.

        And why for this Tu-160? From the territory of the Russian Federation missiles can be launched from ground-based launchers - there is no more agreement.
        1. AlexHafele
          AlexHafele 27 June 2022 13: 13
          -1
          Quote: Alexey RA
          Quote: AlexHafele
          The Tu-160 can launch missiles while over the territory of the Russian Federation - far beyond the range of enemy fighters.

          And why for this Tu-160? From the territory of the Russian Federation missiles can be launched from ground-based launchers - there is no more agreement.

          I do not know why. The man just wrote about him, and I added that since it came to that, they are unlikely to meet. No more.
      2. Dimax-nemo
        Dimax-nemo 11 July 2022 09: 06
        0
        According to the author's scenario, they were supposed to fly somewhere there, and not launch rockets over their territory. With RCC, this will not work in any case.
  17. Sergey39
    Sergey39 27 June 2022 08: 37
    +1
    Tsar Peter built a fleet in Russia! The fleet is always needed! Being an integral part of the armed forces. It must be flexible and have a variety of combat means to solve all kinds of problems. Ah, the command must use it wisely. (The fact of stupidity is the death of Moscow, but alas, at the initial stage, I think the intelligence failed when We, on land and at sea, tried to throw hats on the enemy, not Ukraine, but the collective West, deeply rooted in the Armed Forces of Ukraine).
    1. abc_alex
      abc_alex 27 June 2022 13: 34
      -1
      Quote: Sergey39
      Tsar Peter built a fleet in Russia! The fleet is always needed!


      Peter built not just a "fleet". He was building a very specific fleet for absolutely clear purposes. And he won the first victories not with battleships and frigates, but with rowing galleys.
      1. Dimax-nemo
        Dimax-nemo 11 July 2022 09: 08
        +1
        Which did not prevent him from building a fleet in the end, in which there were more ships of the battle line than frigates and shnyavs.
  18. Skipper
    Skipper 27 June 2022 08: 41
    +5
    I still don't understand the author. He is a master of speaking and not saying anything clearly. Everything is gone .. everywhere a complete failure. The failure of the concept of larger ships and the failure of the concept of the mosquito fleet ... and then what to do? And at the expense of the RRC Moscow and its death, everything is simple - there is just outdated air defense from the time of 1982 and no more. If there were ZRAK Dirk-M, then everything would be different.
  19. Symens
    Symens 27 June 2022 08: 53
    -3
    Interestingly, did the author himself serve in the Navy? Some kind of primitive approach to assessing the problem, the author does not understand the following: the main purpose of the fleet is not to participate in the war, but to prevent it, one of the ways of the so-called. demonstration of the flag, and the mosquito fleet will not play big weather here, but to protect its coast and coastal communications it is the very thing, then an assessment of the need for a ship must be made from its purpose, and Moscow’s example of this is confirmation of why it was necessary to send a missile cruiser there, whose purpose is to strike at ship groups, and finally, let's face it, what is the combat composition of the fleet now, its age, condition and training of crews? Previously, military service was a common occurrence, but now this is an event, but some kind of tank biathlon, army games. It seems that the Second World War did not teach us anything, and we trained German tankers, and pilots, and the Komet scout took the northern route, and then they got it in the teeth from all the students, and now we are again showing everyone what we are capable of and our weak places
  20. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
    Andrei from Chelyabinsk 27 June 2022 09: 16
    +7
    Touching. Large ships, according to the author, are unable to fulfill their tasks off the coast of Ukraine, but he is ready to send UDC there. Apparently, in his universe, UDC and unmanned boats have special PRK immunity, missiles bounce off them like peas ...
    That a potential landing threat is created not only by the UDC. but the available BDK - the author ignores. On the other hand, the Forpost-R UAV, with its 120 kg ammunition at the most, is a miracle weapon capable of clearing the way for the landing force.
    especially amused
    And they completely ignore the truly modern trends in the development of the US Navy, which can be illustrated by the photograph below.

    That is, the serial construction of Columbia-type SSBNs, the accelerated construction of the Virginia MAPL, work on a new large frigate to replace littoral ships, the continuation of the construction of nuclear ABs, the E-2D Advanced Hawkeye, and so on and so forth - this is not a modern trend .
    And the USS Ponce (LPD-15), shown in the photograph, has been used in recent years to test laser weapons and decommissioned in 2017 - a truly modern trend laughing
    Well what can I say? laughing
    1. AlexHafele
      AlexHafele 27 June 2022 10: 00
      -1
      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
      Touching. Large ships, according to the author, are unable to fulfill their tasks

      Moscow sank not "according to the author." But in reality. Unless you want to assume that this was his task.

      And I think you misrepresented the meaning of the article. The author wrote about the fact that the fleet does NOT have the tools to detect and attack targets such as heavy equipment or artillery on the coast.

      Do you agree that it is better to have such an opportunity than not to have it?
      Or do you think that Cruiser Moscow was capable of doing this?

      But the Forpost-R UAV with its 120 kg of ammunition at most is a miracle weapon,

      There was no question of a miracle, but he is capable of detecting equipment (including, by the way, anti-ship systems).
      As well as carrying a warhead sufficient to destroy it.

      That a potential landing threat is created not only by the UDC. but the existing BDK - the author ignores

      In my opinion, the article says in black and white that without the destruction of enemy artillery and equipment ready to repel the landing, such a task is ridiculous.

      In addition to this, UDCs carry out landings without coming close to the shore.
      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 27 June 2022 10: 44
        +5
        Quote: AlexHafele
        Moscow sank not "according to the author." But in reality.

        But the UDC, of ​​course, will not sink. I also write
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        UDC and crewless boats have special PRK immunity, missiles bounce off them like peas ...

        Quote: AlexHafele
        And I think you misrepresented the meaning of the article.

        You can't distort what doesn't exist.
        Quote: AlexHafele
        The author wrote about the fact that the fleet does NOT have the tools to detect and attack targets such as heavy equipment or artillery on the coast.

        In terms of discovery, no. In terms of destruction - except for the Su-30, in general, not much either.
        Quote: AlexHafele
        Do you agree that it is better to have such an opportunity than not to have it?

        The question is - who told you that the author's recommendations will give us this opportunity?
        Quote: AlexHafele
        There was no question of a miracle, but he is capable of detecting equipment (including, by the way, anti-ship systems).

        Let's clarify. The range of Forpost-R is about 200 km, and in order for it to be able to patrol something in the landing area, it is at this distance from it that the UDC should be located. The same applies to unmanned boats, for which the author advocates. That is, in order to carry out such "search" it is necessary to introduce UDC into the zone of operation of Ukrainian land-based anti-ship missiles. And now, in order to launch several UAVs weighing less than 400 kg, it is necessary to substitute a ship twice as large as the displacement of the Moskva under a missile attack. Nothing in the author's "logic" hurts his eyes? :))))
        Let's say. we learned how to control the Forpost at distances greater than 200 km. Why, then, is the UDC needed at all, if the UAV can be sent for reconnaissance and controlled from the same Crimea?
        That is, if you are already sure that light UAVs are independently capable of opening enemy positions (and this is not close to the case), then it is much more reasonable to teach them to operate at a great distance, UDC is not needed here. What else can UDC offer? Send AWACS and attack helicopters to the areas of operation of unsuppressed enemy air defense along the S-300 inclusive? Seriously?
        Quote: AlexHafele
        In my opinion, the article says in black and white that without the destruction of enemy artillery and equipment ready to repel the landing, such a task is ridiculous.

        So, I bring to your attention that this task CANNOT be solved by a UAV. If it COULD be solved by them, then all this artillery and armored vehicles of the special operation would not have been needed - they would have launched an UAV, they would have identified the artillery and armored personnel carriers of the enemy and destroyed it. But for some reason this doesn't happen in practice.
        Quote: AlexHafele
        In addition to this, UDCs carry out landings without coming close to the shore.

        "Moskva", oddly enough, also did not come close to the shore. But you already forgot about it.
        1. AlexHafele
          AlexHafele 27 June 2022 11: 27
          -1
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          In terms of discovery, no. In terms of destruction - except for the Su-30, in general, not much either.

          Not a little, but not at all.
          If you do not consider artillery skirmishes.

          So you are satisfied with this state of affairs.
          And the author, who is not satisfied with this, is wrong.

          Let the fleet continue to remain a blind paraplegic?

          The question is - who told you that the author's recommendations will give us this opportunity?

          You open YouTube - Ukrainian helicopter pilots make low-altitude breakthroughs.
          And recently, another drone flew into the Novoshakhtensky refinery.
          Are you saying that it doesn't make sense?

          A kamikaze drone fired from a boat will not be able to hit the target?


          Let's clarify. The range of Forpost-R is about 200 km, and in order for it to be able to patrol something in the landing area, it is at this distance from it that the UDC should be located. The same applies to unmanned boats, for which the author advocates. That is, in order to carry out such "search" it is necessary to introduce UDC into the zone of operation of Ukrainian land-based anti-ship missiles. And now, in order to launch several UAVs weighing less than 400 kg, it is necessary to substitute a ship twice as large as the displacement of the Moskva under a missile attack. Nothing in the author's "logic" hurts his eyes? :))))

          I think you are again distorting what is written in black and white.

          The range of Forpost-R is about 200 km

          You are wrong here.
          "Forpost-R", which received an update to the communication channel, which expanded the range to 350.

          In addition, no one bothers to use repeaters.


          In general, the ships are still in the Black Sea.
          By the way, Wikipedia says that the range of the Harpoons is 280 km.
          From Odessa to Sevastopol 300.
          In your own words - nothing in this state of affairs hurts the eyes?

          If we are talking about the fact that the fleet should hide in the opposite part of the sea like rats, then why is such a fleet needed?

          If the ships stand between Sevastopol and Odessa, as an air defense element, then they already run the risk of being fired upon by missiles.

          And if there is a risk, then it is better to be able to both detect the enemy on the shore and destroy him.
          What is the risk that they can shoot at them from the shore, but they don’t answer (except for calibers).

          So, I bring to your attention that this task CANNOT be solved by a UAV. If it COULD be solved by them, then all this artillery and armored vehicles of the special operation would not have been needed - they would have launched an UAV, they would have identified the artillery and armored personnel carriers of the enemy and destroyed it. But for some reason this doesn't happen in practice.

          Of course they can do it.
          The fact that we are many years behind the United States in terms of UAVs is our problem.
          The author is right that he "drowns" for the development of this direction.
          And you don't seem to agree?

          If we imagine that strike UAVs do not exist in the world at all, then in the reconnaissance version they are also useful.
          They will identify places of accumulation of equipment, supply points.
          The information will go to the command.
          Helicopters or planes can already operate on these points with their missiles. Or drone boats.

          This is the concept of setocentric warfare. And it also needs to be developed.
          Do you disagree here as well?
          1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
            Andrei from Chelyabinsk 27 June 2022 12: 26
            +2
            Quote: AlexHafele
            Not a little, but not at all.
            If you do not consider artillery skirmishes.

            Precisely there is, and precisely "a little". This is the Su-24, which seems to still be part of the Black Sea Fleet, these are the Ka-29, transport and combat helicopters, for example. So I strongly do not recommend that you continue to "speak indisputable truths" on issues that are not very familiar to you.
            Quote: AlexHafele
            So you are satisfied with this state of affairs.

            On the whole - more likely yes than no, because the task of landing the fleet today should be in the 100500th place.
            Quote: AlexHafele
            And the author, who is not satisfied with this, is wrong.

            Wrong because his recommendations do not achieve the goal he is striving for
            Quote: AlexHafele
            Let the fleet continue to remain a blind paraplegic?

            What a charm :))))))) You offer an amazing choice: "Either we do as the author said, or we are blind paralytics." The question is that your "choice" is pure manipulation, because:
            1) The author's recommendations will leave the fleet the same "blind paraplegic" as it is now.
            2) There are other solutions to this problem that you ignore. I would like to believe that out of ignorance
            Quote: AlexHafele
            You open YouTube - Ukrainian helicopter pilots make low-altitude breakthroughs.
            And recently, another drone flew into the Novoshakhtensky refinery.
            Are you saying that it doesn't make sense?

            Close YouTube, and turn on common sense. In both cases, a completely different task took place, namely: a breakthrough to a specific and previously known point, in one case - for evacuation, in the second - to hit a stationary target, the location of which WAS KNOWN IN ADVANCE.
            Therefore, in fact, everything worked out. And then to say - how many times did the same breakthrough to the refinery fail? More than one drone and Tochka-U were hit while trying to attack targets on the territory of the Russian Federation.
            In general, the task of hitting a target with known coordinates on a UAV can be assigned even in conditions of unsuppressed enemy air defense (quick passage to the target at ultra-small). Perhaps he will even fulfill it. Only now, a reconnaissance flight in order to identify targets is a completely different task, which requires a long stay of the UAV in the air in the target area (and not in ultra-small ones) and a careful examination of the territory.
            Quote: AlexHafele
            I think you are again distorting what is written in black and white.

            Be baptized with a small cross, they say it helps.
            Quote: AlexHafele
            In addition, no one bothers to use repeaters.

            Nobody. And why then UDC?
            Quote: AlexHafele
            In general, the ships are still in the Black Sea.
            By the way, Wikipedia says that the range of the Harpoons is 280 km.
            From Odessa to Sevastopol 300.
            In your own words - nothing in this state of affairs hurts the eyes?

            In addition to your illiteracy in matters that you undertake to judge? Nothing.
            Quote: AlexHafele
            If we are talking about the fact that the fleet should hide in the opposite part of the sea like rats, then why is such a fleet needed?

            Let's say :)
            Quote: AlexHafele
            If the ships stand between Sevastopol and Odessa, as an air defense element, then they already run the risk of being fired upon by missiles.

            Let's say :)
            Quote: AlexHafele
            And if there is a risk, then it is better to be able to both detect the enemy on the shore and destroy him.

            Gold words. And do you know what it takes?
            1) Patrol, reconnaissance aircraft and AWACS aircraft - to control the sky over the coast and identify enemy forces.
            2) Multifunctional fighters
            And it works like this - reconnaissance, using all types (starting with a satellite constellation and beyond), monitors the movements and deployment of enemy forces. Aviation, with its powerful radars, optical-location stations, electronic intelligence equipment, establishes XNUMX-hour zonal dominance. As soon as the enemy turns on something (radar, for example), a PRR or something else immediately flies there. That is, the air defense system may not be completely destroyed, but is under constant "pressure" of destruction. The launch of the anti-ship missiles is immediately detected by the AWACS aircraft, the fighter patrol on duty intercepts the anti-ship missiles in flight. In addition to them, of course, the air defense of the fleet bases, etc. is working.
            And then modern warships with adequate air defense systems may well operate even in the coastal zone.
            Quote: AlexHafele
            Of course they can do it.

            Religious issues are sacred to me
            Quote: AlexHafele
            The fact that we are many years behind the United States in terms of UAVs is our problem.

            Of course, you do not know that the United States NEVER entrusted UAVs with the tasks of fully revealing the combat situation, reconnaissance and hitting targets. The fact that the Americans, based on the results of operating their own UAVs, concluded that UAVs are effective EXCLUSIVELY in the zone of domination and under the cover of their own aircraft, you, of course, do not know either.
            Quote: AlexHafele
            And you don't seem to agree?

            Of course. I'm still a realist, not a dreamer
            1. AlexHafele
              AlexHafele 27 June 2022 13: 09
              +1
              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              Precisely there is, and precisely "a little". This is the Su-24, which seems to still be part of the Black Sea Fleet, these are the Ka-29, transport and combat helicopters, for example

              Yes, the Su-24 is exactly the means by which it is convenient to hit equipment pressed against residential buildings.
              And before hitting, who will detect targets?
              Su-24 and Ka-29 themselves?

              In addition to your illiteracy in matters that you undertake to judge? Nothing.

              I'm not Judge Dred to "judge".
              You apparently have nothing to say, looking at this situation with geography and distances, so you are rude.

              Wrong because his recommendations do not achieve the goal he is striving for

              Here is the same question of religion.
              UAVs have been successfully performing these functions for many years.
              Today it is obvious even to children.
              But apparently not for you.

              Gold words. And do you know what it takes?
              1) Patrol, reconnaissance aircraft and AWACS aircraft - to control the sky over the coast and identify enemy forces.
              2) Multifunctional fighters.

              Stop using.

              And what about AWACS and the destruction of radars when it came to the destruction of artillery systems?
              Are you watching the news? Do you know that artillery is now the most active type of troops?
              How do you propose to destroy it? Aircraft AWACS and Fighters?
              1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                Andrei from Chelyabinsk 27 June 2022 14: 15
                +1
                Quote: AlexHafele
                Yes, the Su-24 is exactly the means by which it is convenient to hit equipment pressed against residential buildings.

                And let's you still will not distort. It was about the capabilities of the fleet to detect and destroy land targets, which I pointed out
                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                In terms of discovery, no. In terms of destruction - except for the Su-30, in general, not much either.

                So it goes.
                Quote: AlexHafele
                And before hitting, who will detect targets?
                Su-24 and Ka-29 themselves?

                You seriously don’t understand that the Su-24 or Ka-29 has much more technical capabilities to detect these targets than the Forpost?
                Quote: AlexHafele
                You apparently have nothing to say, looking at this situation with geography and distances, so you are rude.

                I haven't started slacking yet. So far, I'm just stating your ignorance in the issues that you undertake to judge. A statement of illiteracy is not rudeness, any person is illiterate in a variety of issues. True, he usually understands his level (more precisely, his absence) and does not undertake to judge what he does not know.
                But you also have logical errors thriving, but I wrote to you about this. You support the author in his irrepressible desire for the UDC necessary for basing the UAV, and immediately write
                Quote: AlexHafele
                Harpoons 280 km.
                From Odessa to Sevastopol 300.

                and right there
                Quote: AlexHafele
                "Forpost-R", which received an update of the communication channel, which expanded range up to 350.

                That is, the same Outpost or its analogue can work easily from the territory of Crimea, but for some reason you still need to put it on the UDC. And after that, you tell me something else about geography.
                Quote: AlexHafele
                UAVs have been successfully performing these functions for many years.
                Today it is obvious even to children.
                But apparently not for you.

                I’m not a small child, and I know what a UAV can and can’t do. After all, I have an idea about both history and its modern application. I also know the place assigned to UAVs in the United States, which have been using it for a very long time. Therefore, I perfectly understand all the non-erotic fantasies on the topic "the UAVs of the ffse flew in and reconnoitered and killed the ffseh."
                Quote: AlexHafele
                And what about AWACS and the destruction of radars when it came to the destruction of artillery systems?

                Well, study at least the basics of modern military operations so that you don’t spread such pearls on the Internet.
                Quote: AlexHafele
                Are you watching the news? Do you know that artillery is now the most active type of troops?
                How do you propose to destroy it? Aircraft AWACS and Fighters?

                We take an ideal case for you - artillery is disguised in positions. It is very difficult to identify her there, almost impossible - when she is properly disguised and sits quietly to herself. With the engines turned off, it is not visible in infra, it does not make noise, it is closed from the radar, etc. You can identify it by external unmasking signs, and in this UAVs are really very useful - provided that they can fly over the possible areas of hidden positions looking for these signs. Because you can fly over a disguised battery five times and not understand anything, but on the sixth you can see something.
                And who will ensure the ability of the UAV to cut circles over enemy territory like this without hindrance? Prayer in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit?
                You sent an outpost, say, near Odessa. Sit in your chair, see that the camera transmits it. Well, the enemy, let's say, visually detected something flying, then turned on the radar (or turned it on right away, you don't know anything about it, there is no open source software), aimed calmly, booms - and there is no UAV . Your camera is off. That's all intelligence.
                Another thing is when the UAV operates under the cover of manned aircraft. The enemy turned on the radar - right there, the SPO began to scream - nna you, dear, interference throughout your radar ... antenna area, and the missile right into it, and right there - we will reorient / see, because the positions of the air defense system or the ZSU are somewhere nearby , and you can spank them too.
                In general, the UAV is an ELEMENT of the system, but it cannot replace the system.
                But such ideal conditions for artillery are not always created, and they exist exactly until the first opening of fire. Artillery is moving, at which point it may be spotted by radar and/or detected in infrared. It communicates (at least with corrective posts) and can be opened by RTR. The flight paths of the projectiles will tell you the approximate location of the firing battery (and they are visible to the radar). But in order to scout all this, you need an aircraft two classes more serious than the same Outpost - even the Global Hawk will not be able to pull out such tasks in the complex. And it costs more than a multifunctional fighter.
                Therefore, in your spherical vacuum, of course, an AWACS aircraft against artillery is useless, but in a real combat operation, it is possible to suppress the enemy’s defenses only with COMPLEX control and impact on the battlefield, despite the fact that UAVs are only an element of such an impact and are completely not self-sufficient
                1. AlexHafele
                  AlexHafele 27 June 2022 14: 33
                  +1
                  Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                  And let's you still will not distort. It was about the capabilities of the fleet to detect and destroy land targets, which I pointed out

                  You seriously don’t understand that the Su-24 or Ka-29 has much more technical capabilities to detect these targets than the Forpost?

                  You contradict yourself..
                  In terms of discovery, no.

                  So is there anything to discover? Since there are more possibilities, there is more than.
                  Confused by 2 paragraphs? So don't rush.
                  Take a pen and paper.

                  Prayer in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit?

                  I'm not a small child

                  Do you have a thing for religion? Don't baby? Well, how can I say ... you can’t say it right away.
                  1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                    Andrei from Chelyabinsk 27 June 2022 15: 22
                    +1
                    Quote: AlexHafele
                    You contradict yourself..

                    There is no contradiction. When you wrote about detection tools, I answered you that there are none, because they really do not exist. When you wrote about how the Su-24 / Ka-29 can detect targets, I wrote that its technical means are better than those of the Outpost.
                    Only now, regardless of the available ones. means NEITHER Su-24/Ka-29, NOR Forpost INDEPENDENTLY are unable to reveal the disposition of enemy forces. You don’t understand this, here’s a contradiction and it seems to you
                    Quote: AlexHafele
                    So is there anything to discover? Since there are more possibilities, there is more than.

                    Kindergarten, group "Herringbone". No, it doesn't work that way.
                    Quote: AlexHafele
                    Do you have a thing for religion? Don't baby?

                    And in your opinion, "child" is something church? laughing
                    This is where you are. Heard a call...
                    Quote: AlexHafele
                    Well, how can I say ... you can’t say it right away.

                    You better really... not talk.
                2. Alexey RA
                  Alexey RA 27 June 2022 17: 14
                  +1
                  Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                  You sent an outpost, say, near Odessa. Sit in your chair, see that the camera transmits it. Well, the enemy, let's say, visually detected something flying, then turned on the radar (or turned it on right away, you don't know anything about it, there is no open source software), aimed calmly, booms - and there is no UAV . Your camera is off. That's all intelligence.

                  Reminded:
              2. iouris
                iouris 27 June 2022 10: 39
                0
                I have never been an expert in naval affairs, however, the "development" of the fleet has always raised the obvious question for me: what is the point of re-developing the fleet to the detriment of other types of aircraft, if it is very difficult with bases and there are no technologies. The Russian Federation now strongly resembles (not only the coat of arms) Austria-Hungary, which "also had" a fleet. It was commanded by the brilliant Admiral Horthy. For almost the entire WWI, officers of the Austro-Hungarian fleet ate and drank wine on silver and crystal. And the Italian torpedo boats drowned him all while trying to leave the base. True, Horthy subsequently headed the whole state - Hungary. But the empire is gone.
                1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                  Andrei from Chelyabinsk 27 June 2022 11: 13
                  +8
                  Quote: iouris
                  what is the point of re-developing the fleet to the detriment of other types of aircraft

                  this has never happened. I repeat - the data given by the author for SAP 2011-2020 is a PLAN. Which, if it were carried out, would lead to equipping the same army with more than 2 "armats", by the way. In reality, everything failed miserably, and the idea to raise as much as 000 trillion under the SAP was initially fantastic
                  1. prodi
                    prodi 27 June 2022 12: 18
                    0
                    well, let's say you're right, and now let's remember the "ultimatum" voiced to the West that it should "get out" within the borders of 1991, in connection with which, after the NWO, we should probably expect a hot conflict with the eastern outskirts of NATO ... What is better in the remaining time, build a fleet or strengthen the more capable army and aviation in the upcoming conventional conflict ...
                2. Senior seaman
                  Senior seaman 27 June 2022 12: 45
                  +3
                  Quote: iouris
                  It was commanded by the brilliant Admiral Horthy.

                  Not certainly in that way. He was appointed commander in March 1918.
                  Quote: iouris
                  And his Italian torpedo boats whole drowned while trying to get out of the base.

                  Is that all right?
              3. EvilLion
                EvilLion 27 June 2022 10: 46
                +7
                got 2 missiles on board


                I have doubts that there was any enemy influence there at all. Well, what's the difference now, after the SVO will be declassified.

                The same Odessa Oil Refinery was supposed to be destroyed not by expensive Calibers, but by cheap kamikaze drones.


                I'll tell you the obvious thing, but "caliber" is the kamikaze drone in a dimension suitable for destroying such targets. One should not think that if an oil refinery attacks a drone with several kg of explosives, it will destroy it, such objects are initially designed with high resistance to explosions and fires.

                our fleet is completely toothless in terms of projecting its power onto the shore


                I’ll say something terrible now, but absolutely all modern fleets that do not have aircraft carriers are like that, and not because the aircraft carrier is cool, but because ships of other classes capable of using something different from “tomahawks” or “calibers” against the coast in these there are simply no fleets. The ideal weapon of the fleet against the shore is the battleship. Firstly, you can’t drown it with anything except another battleship or torpedoes, secondly, large-caliber shells are incomparably cheaper than missiles. Against this background, the same "Arleigh Burke" is considered art. they have no weapons at all. So a salute cannon, the same can be said about the "eagles", 1 thousand tons of displacement for one 2 mm installation is not serious. And if in American realities all these missile cruisers can still be understood as part of the defense system of an aircraft carrier, which will nightmare the coast, then in the USSR, even the later projects of aircraft carriers were intended solely to combat enemy AUGs, ships against the coast, point me a finger, I don’t I see.

                In this connection, the attitude becomes clear - why bother and work on real coordination and development of complex tactics, if you can do what you have been doing for many years - shoot Caliber.


                Actually, firing "calibers" is just the right approach. And another question arises, why spend years on training, if you can make rockets and put them in a warehouse, and then just fill them with a flight program. The cost of these missiles is incomparably less than the cost of the operation to march to Odessa and shell it with something cheaper. I'm not talking about time. In the same way, the use of controlled ASPs in aviation, despite their cost, turns out to be cheaper than pouring a lot of iron, burning kerosene and risking a large number of aircraft.

                One gets the feeling that we want to again step on the same rake as with strike drones - to lag behind Turkey and the whole world for 10 years, and then frantically catch up.


                Excuse me, but in what way are we lagging behind Turkey? In aeromodelling, or what? Practice has shown that what was obvious from the very beginning, small drones with a couple of small bombs are not able to somehow influence the course of the war, and air defense shoots them down. And in order not to shoot down, it is necessary to hang up electronic warfare equipment, plan massive raids, in general, move into a completely different price category, already close to traditional aviation. It reminds me of the worship of anti-tank rifles from WWII, the usefulness of which should be considered rather even negative, because only people were distracted into their calculations, while in 1942 there were as many as 300 of these fishing rods per division. and the German tanks did not even notice it.

                Let's say the enemy has placed howitzers 20 km from the coastline. And at a distance of 30 km, an armored group was formed, which dispersed throughout a residential area.


                And helicopters will knock it out? Let's be honest, on helicopter carriers, even if we have a couple of pieces, we will place a maximum of 40 helicopters. And these helicopters will become the only means of combat, that is, it is enough for the enemy to strengthen the air defense, and again we cannot do anything. Unlike the fleet, the ground forces and the air force can use the means according to the situation, a lot of air defense is dangerous for helicopters, bombers will fly in, the enemy went on a counterattack with tanks supported by artillery, he will be met by our tanks, and not just light infantry with anti-tank systems. And so on. Landing where the enemy can put up a tank battalion against him will end very badly.

                The fundamental question for the fleet is that it cannot refuse precisely the expensive toys left over from Soviet times, which require inadequate investments to bring them into real combat readiness, but at the same time continue to absorb resources, taking them away, as from more useful ships, and other branches of the military. Issue 24 MiG-29K for "Kuzi" is a direct take away from the Air Force and these machines (where are they now, under covers?), And pilots for them.

                Drown the "Kuzya" already, free up space and build some more useful BDKs.
                1. Alexey RA
                  Alexey RA 27 June 2022 13: 13
                  +2
                  Quote: EvilLion
                  One should not think that if an oil refinery attacks a drone with several kg of explosives, it will destroy it, such objects are initially designed with high resistance to explosions and fires.

                  It's just that few people remember the reports of the actions of American bombers in Europe in WWII. And it was directly written there that it was useless to bomb the columns at the refinery - since they are designed to withstand high temperatures and pressure during the processes taking place in them, they can be attributed to armored targets. smile
                  And it was also written there that at the refinery it was necessary to work at the nodal points of the internal pipeline system and substations.
                  Quote: EvilLion
                  ships against the shore, show me your finger, I don't see.

                  956 project.
                  Which was originally classified as a fire support ship. And on which the AK-130 "ate" the normal GAS.
                  1. EvilLion
                    EvilLion 27 June 2022 14: 14
                    -1
                    AK-130


                    Suffice it to recall WWII cruisers with 6'' or even 180 mm guns. Not to mention the higher class ships. Well, it is obvious that ships with a total displacement of 8k tons cannot be the main striking force of the fleet.
                2. Sergey Aleksandrovich
                  Sergey Aleksandrovich 27 June 2022 14: 35
                  +2
                  Even on the "Empress Maria" and "Sevastopol" nothing has really been declassified so far. And you want to know about "Moscow" soon!
                3. Sergey Aleksandrovich
                  Sergey Aleksandrovich 27 June 2022 16: 35
                  +2
                  The accuracy of our "Caliber" is still insufficient, for example, to confidently disable the railway bridge for a long time. A ship-launched drone with target illumination can already provide the required accuracy for both a guided aerial bomb and a long-range missile launched from a ship's MLRS.
                4. Alexander Vorontsov
                  27 June 2022 20: 16
                  0
                  Quote: EvilLion
                  I'll tell you the obvious thing, but "caliber" is the kamikaze drone in a dimension suitable for destroying such targets. One should not think that if an oil refinery attacks a drone with several kg of explosives, it will destroy it, such objects are initially designed with high resistance to explosions and fires.

                  Yes, kamikaze drone.

                  At the expense of dimension - depending on what you mean by the word destroy.
                  If, to the ground, excluding restoration in principle, then of course you need to bomb with large calibers, from 500 and above.

                  If we are talking about hitting key nodes - the power supply of the facility, containers with raw materials, products, then all this is perfectly damaged by small UAVs. At the same time, on the scale of a military operation, the facility ceases to function. You can't store fuel there. It cannot be produced there. This is sufficient in most cases.

                  I’ll say something terrible now, but absolutely all modern fleets that do not have aircraft carriers are like that, and not because the aircraft carrier is cool, but because ships of other classes capable of using something different from “tomahawks” or “calibers” against the coast in these there are simply no fleets.

                  Helicopter carriers were perfectly used against the coast.


                  And another question arises, why waste resources for years on preparation, if you can make rockets and put them in a warehouse, and then just fill them with a flight program. The cost of these missiles is incomparably less than the cost of the operation to march to Odessa and shell it with something cheaper. I'm not talking about time.

                  As one of the commentators wrote to the last article, we are talking about the destruction of flickering targets. Which includes artillery.
                  Plus, a number of targets can hide near residential buildings.

                  The caliber helps a little here.

                  And these goals must be destroyed. Because it's not only a question of their cost, it's also a question of the cost of what they can destroy.

                  And helicopters will knock it out? Let's be honest, on helicopter carriers, even if we have a couple of pieces, we will place a maximum of 40 helicopters. And these helicopters will become the only means of struggle, that is, it is enough for the enemy to strengthen air defense,

                  If the fleet forces the enemy to strengthen the air defense of the coast, then it will be easier for the guys on land.
                  This is participation in the war.

                  They can also destroy. The UAV found, the helicopter flew up, launched the missile from a long distance and left.

                  Another question is that we just made a 14+ km rocket.

                  Excuse me, but in what way are we lagging behind Turkey? In aeromodelling, or what?

                  I will write more about this in the next article.
                  The issue is not technology. Sounds really ridiculous, because yes, in aircraft modeling.
                  When the Turks were bombing the Kurds with their bayraktars, we were chasing pickups on airplanes.
                  This is a fact.
                  1. EvilLion
                    EvilLion 27 June 2022 22: 24
                    +1
                    If we are talking about hitting key nodes - the power supply of the facility, containers with raw materials, products, then all this is perfectly damaged by small UAVs. At the same time, on the scale of a military operation, the facility ceases to function.


                    For 3 days. At the same time, such a dangerous production facility was originally designed so that if a column or container catches fire, this should not lead to the spread of fire.

                    we are talking about the destruction of flickering targets. Which includes artillery.
                    Plus, a number of targets can hide near residential buildings.


                    The refinery is not a flickering target. And you already decide what you want, to catch tanks in the rear, or to bang stationary very important objects there.

                    They can also destroy. The UAV found, the helicopter flew up, launched the missile from a long distance and left.


                    The maximum speed of the helicopter is 300-350 km/h. That is, a helicopter can cover a maximum of 5-6 kilometers in a minute. That is, at distances of tens of kilometers, a helicopter, like air defense, is useless from the word in general.

                    When the Turks were bombing the Kurds with their bayraktars, we were chasing pickups on airplanes.


                    I don’t know what they bombed with bayraktars there, but the F-16 is actually not at all redundant for such purposes. Although it is more logical to use helicopters.
                    1) "Bayraktar" carries a very small ammunition load and has an insignificant range.
                    2) "Bayraktar" may not be very vulnerable to the simplest air defense, but as soon as you solve problems and Fri. 1 you will get a rather large and noticeable airplane.
                    3) There are no systems on the "bayraktar" to ensure the use of guided weapons. He can only throw bombs. That is, for effective and safe hunting for technicals, it is necessary to supply search equipment and guidance tools. The smallest radar weighs about 100 kg. And we come back to Fri. 2. And in the end, it turns out that the best aircraft for such a war would be the modern version of the MiG-21, a light fighter with an empty weight of 6-7 tons, you can shoot it down from an MZA or MANPADS over a flat terrain, it can survey a decent territory with a radar, it can attack several targets and, if necessary, deliver KAB-500 class ammunition.

                    The problem of our Air Force is that we have a monstrous bomber, but there are very few Su-25s capable of using ATGMs. But for a small war, the development of a separate aircraft will cost more than savings on operation. Maybe after the SVO the Su-25 will finally end, and the question of a light attack aircraft will arise with the readiness to make 100-150 copies.
                    1. Alexander Vorontsov
                      27 June 2022 23: 25
                      0
                      Quote: EvilLion
                      The refinery is not a flickering target. And you already decide what you want, to catch tanks in the rear, or to bang stationary very important objects there.

                      So everything is described in the article.
                      One does not interfere with the other - if you can destroy flickering targets, then you can attack a stationary object even more so.
                      Is there a positive experience of the Houthis? There is.
                      So you can try to apply in a similar scenario.

                      The problem of our Air Force is that we have a monstrous bomber, but there are very few Su-25s capable of using ATGMs.

                      Are you talking about a modification with vortices? 25T?
                      1. EvilLion
                        EvilLion 28 June 2022 11: 02
                        0
                        Not a single Su-25 has a built-in radar, i.e. even the Su-25T would require the suspension of this, or blind search. As for the capabilities of the Su-25SM, I don’t remember what it can point there, but there is no radar there either.

                        Is there a positive experience of the Houthis? There is.
                        So you can try to apply in a similar scenario.


                        The Hussites didn’t have to trudge anywhere, but you propose to arrange a whole exit of ships in order to shoot small drones from close range. But why, when there is a large drone that can be launched at an object in Odessa from the Caspian Sea, and after which there will be a crater the size of a house at the point of impact?

                        It is not for nothing that the world has restrictions on the supply of missiles with a range of more than 300 km.
              4. Knell wardenheart
                Knell wardenheart 27 June 2022 11: 05
                +2
                Let's not come up with another gloomy-brilliant Russian super-garbage and see what roles the fleet plays abroad.

                The Americans need a fleet to more flexibly project their hypertrophied power anywhere, to provide strategic pressure in the regions of interest to them, to ensure layered (as part of other means) control over their coastal zone and distant approaches from potential adversaries. They can and do use their fleet to damage ground infrastructure, but this is not a fetish for them - this ability gives them tactical flexibility to avoid breaking obvious walls with their heads where they can be bypassed using the means available to them. That is, they use their regional bases where necessary, but if they see that the enemy is well prepared for such a scenario, they will act more flexibly and use the fleet as a tool for delivering less predictable strikes.
                It is the navy that is forcing US adversaries to invest in a significant and extended defense, to squander funds on attempts to somehow solve the problem of flexible actions by this navy.

                That is, for the United States, the fleet is a tool, first of all, forcing external players to comply with rules and procedures that are beneficial to the United States, and through this, secondarily, the protection of their territory.

                The Chinese need a fleet to dominate the region(s) of interest. For them, this is a means of flexible stopping the threat from the fleet and other means of the United States in terms of the complex they are building, designed to prevent the development of events by force through increasing the "price for entry". The economy allows the PRC to create a fleet and a complex of assets that regionally dominates the US fleet and complex "in theory" and through this come to greater security and at the same time to a greater role in the region, as soon as they feel that this security has been achieved (the United States is trying in every possible way to do so so they don't feel it).

                That is, for the PRC, the fleet is primarily the protection of its territory and interests, through the creation of an expanded zone with a "high entry price" that combines stationary and mobile objects (fleet and bases, including artificial islands) - not only from direct military threat, but also, in principle, from the system of "coercion to comply with the rules."

                Looking at such a design, one can imagine what tasks our fleet should have.
                In view of our huge borders, we are unlikely to be able to implement the "Chinese" approach. Due to the weakness of our economy and the greater threat to our near zone - we cannot implement the US approach. In this case, we would need a fleet that exceeds the US fleet by 30% - but this would only be rational if we took the place of the US in the role of global gendarme.

                Thus, I see a hybrid approach as the most logical - we keep the best part of the fleet in the Pacific Fleet, here our construction logic should DIFFER from other fleets, for which we can and should rely more on stationary objects. At the Pacific Fleet, we need mobile forces capable of AT LEAST creating a "high price for entry" and, at the maximum, conducting blitz operations in the region. In the Northern Fleet, we should have a relatively small but modern fleet, which we will be able to regularly update. In this region, we do not need strike power - we need CONTROL, we can assign strike power to aviation.
                In the Baltic and Black Seas, we should have small fleets with good security and the ability to deliver PRECISION strikes in conjunction with a network of stationary objects that will be responsible for the "entry price".

                To summarize - our common task, as I see it, is the POSSIBILITY of creating regional dominance at sea where it is most practically justified (DV). Where it is less justified, an up-to-date fleet should be combined with high situational awareness. Where it is least justified, it is worth relying on stationary objects with the possibility of delivering pinpoint strikes, including by the fleet (but basically the fleet is needed there to cover landing operations and anti-aircraft defense).

                Only in this approach we reach the optimum. I generally recommend forgetting about "protection on distant shores" - not with our economy. The defense will come out very loose and weak, and the geography here is against us, unfortunately. In addition to this, it is quite rational to keep separate status ships in the Baltic and at the World Cup, but these can be veterans who have served their time and not current combat units.
                Regarding aircraft carriers, I admit that it is quite rational to have 1-2, but only in the Pacific Fleet.

                We should stop assuming that we are preparing for World War 3 and move on to understanding the architecture of real security, otherwise we will be drained and devoured by a chain of local conflicts.
                1. Alexey RA
                  Alexey RA 27 June 2022 12: 10
                  +2
                  Quote: Knell Wardenheart
                  We should stop assuming that we are preparing for World War 3 and move on to understanding the architecture of real security, otherwise we will be drained and devoured by a chain of local conflicts.

                  The problem is that a chain of local conflicts as a means of solving problems in international relations is possible only in the event of a third world threat. As long as Players can be guaranteed to destroy each other in direct confrontation, they will solve problems in proxy wars.
                  Therefore, for the Navy, the main task was, is and will be to ensure the use of the marine part of the triad. And only after solving this problem, the fleet can deal with the rest.
                  Moreover, it may turn out that in the process of ensuring the exit and duty of the SSBNs, some non-strategic tasks will also be solved - for example, the protection of the Kuril Islands as the boundary of the "bastion". wink
                  1. Knell wardenheart
                    Knell wardenheart 27 June 2022 12: 54
                    0
                    Here, after all, the task of protecting the marine part of the triad is divided into 2, in general, great opposites.
                    1)Protect if used by us proactively. In this case, yes, we can cope with the task of covering the exit and dispersal. But in this case, our SSBNs are only 1/3 of our nuclear power, for the sake of this, it seems redundant to form the composition of the fleet ..
                    2) Protection in the event of a retaliatory strike. There is absolutely skepticism here - the BSU, if implemented, will be one of the first to try to withdraw our naval bases and early warning systems, and SSBN basing points. If we proceed from the fact that the enemy prepares the BGU carefully, a significant part of the deployment plans will immediately fly into the toilet, along with a solid share of the forces involved in this deployment. The submarine component will have to improvise, most likely, the cover by the fleet will be carried out to a minimum and in an environment of the most severe time pressure. In this case, the fleet acts practically as an additional. targets for the enemy plan, since the tasks of effectively opening enemy preparations for a BGU at sea and protecting the deployment of their SSBNs are, in general, mutually exclusive, given the disparate sizes of our fleet and the US fleet.

                    I am leading to the fact that the assignment of such tasks to the fleet and the fleet building for these tasks, in my opinion, gives only the illusion of security, with numerous and sometimes very rough assumptions about how and what the enemy will do, how and what will not happen.

                    Now, watching all these dances with a tambourine around Serpentine (and earlier around Odessa), I see that a local conflict situation stretched out in time requires an independent and capable fleet to protect itself, in some occasional situations that can arise, it is enough to use third-party means. Our security architecture in the Far East is based on current borders, a local conflict can make significant changes to this architecture, under which it will no longer be possible to adapt the fleet we have. And this will be detrimental to the entire security architecture. First of all, I mean, of course, a hypothetical conflict situation around the Kuriles, in which we can at least be very well beaten (according to the experience of the war of Ukrainians with our large ships), as much as possible to squeeze out a number of islands or bring the Russian Federation to the limited use of tactical nuclear weapons (which is also beneficial to the Americans, who need a casus beli to use such means against the Russian Federation itself in the case of BSU). All these options are bad or very bad for us, because we suffer collateral damage, because of this, hidden or obvious gaps appear in our defense, due to which the security architecture can "ride" even more.

                    So I think that the fleet under the tasks of covering the deployment is, of course, magical, but the higher the risks of the objective security of the borders (outside the already thoroughly worn out nuclear deterrence strategy), the greater the risks that this very "deployment" will not happen on that scale in which we present it.
                    1. Alexey RA
                      Alexey RA 27 June 2022 14: 26
                      +2
                      Quote: Knell Wardenheart
                      1)Protect if used by us proactively. In this case, yes, we can cope with the task of covering the exit and dispersal. But in this case, our SSBNs are only 1/3 of our nuclear power, for the sake of this, it seems redundant to form the composition of the fleet ..

                      Not certainly in that way. With normal support, SSBNs are the most survivable carriers of strategic SBCs. They are a guarantee of the inevitability of retribution.
                      But this is only with the normal provision of their actions. If 6 SSBNs are covered by one ICAPL, and the exit from the base is provided with ships from the times of dear Mikhail Sergeyevich with development complexes from the times of dear Leonid Ilyich, then SSBNs from carriers of inevitable retribution turn into the easiest way to deprive the country of 40% of nuclear power.
                      Quote: Knell Wardenheart
                      2) Protection in the event of a retaliatory strike. There is absolutely skepticism here - if it is implemented, the BSU will be one of the first to try to withdraw our naval bases and early warning systems, and SSBN basing points.

                      Here we run into our traditional trouble - low KOH. The USSR could compensate for it with a large number of ships. RF is no longer available.
                      In order for SSBNs to be a real guarantor of peace, even in peacetime they must be kept on combat duty in numbers that guarantee unacceptable losses in the event of a sudden strike. I emphasize - not to vitrify completely, but only to make sure that the victory turns out to be Pyrrhic.
                      And for this, in addition to the ship, we need infrastructure so unloved by our fleet in the form of equipped base points and repair plants. Otherwise, the Navy will again have to balance between combat training, combat duty and the preservation of materiel.
                      Quote: Knell Wardenheart
                      So I think that the fleet under the tasks of covering the deployment is, of course, magical, but the higher the risks of the objective security of the borders (outside the already thoroughly worn out nuclear deterrence strategy), the greater the risks that this very "deployment" will not happen on that scale in which we present it.

                      So I wrote that the solution of a strategic task involves solving some of the non-strategic tasks, without which it is impossible:
                      Quote: Alexey RA
                      Moreover, it may turn out that in the process of ensuring the exit and duty of the SSBNs, some non-strategic tasks will also be solved - for example, the protection of the Kuril Islands as the boundary of the "bastion".

                      Protecting the Kuril ridge is an integral part of the task of covering the deployment of SSBNs, since the islands are the land border of the "bastion".
              5. AdAstra
                AdAstra 27 June 2022 11: 44
                0
                Nobody knows by chance on "Moscow" the investigation is going on?
              6. Serg65
                Serg65 27 June 2022 11: 50
                +5
                what Wow, I've never read such nonsense before! The author is on fire! crying
                1. Sergey Aleksandrovich
                  Sergey Aleksandrovich 27 June 2022 19: 03
                  -2
                  Be even more surprised when you realize that there is absolutely nothing to oppose to a battery of modern accurate 155-mm enemy howitzers with high-range high-explosive fragmentation shells close to 40 km, a fleet consisting of large landing ships and frigates.
                  1. Serg65
                    Serg65 28 June 2022 07: 24
                    +3
                    Quote: Sergey Alexandrovich
                    Be even more surprised when you realize

                    Thank you very much, Sergey Alexandrovich, in the morning there was such a lousy mood .... until I read your comment .... laughing good
                    Your battery amicably needs a large barge and a solid tug! wink laughing
                    1. Sergey Aleksandrovich
                      Sergey Aleksandrovich 28 June 2022 09: 24
                      -1
                      He is always ready to please the condo moreman, who has no idea about the capabilities of not only modern artillery, but even about the achievements of the last century.
                      1. Serg65
                        Serg65 28 June 2022 10: 18
                        +2
                        Sergei Alexandrovich, let's play war games, shall we?
                        Comrade generals gave your 155 mm battery to support the landing in the Chernomorsk region, to cover Odessa from the west .... so to speak, help the troops advancing from Nikolaev. Distance from Serpentine-90 km., Distance from Tendrovskaya spit-45 km., while Tendrovskaya spit is in full view from Ochakovo and Yuzhny.
                        What are the actions of the battery commander?
                        1. Sergey Aleksandrovich
                          Sergey Aleksandrovich 28 June 2022 10: 35
                          -1
                          155-mm howitzers in service with NATO countries. Such howitzers will encounter unarmed landing craft when attempting to land troops.
                          Do you ever read what you write?
                          Where is the limit of incompetence on this site? Kondovy Moremans do not even know the calibers of artillery in service with different countries.
                          1. Serg65
                            Serg65 28 June 2022 10: 40
                            +2
                            Quote: Sergey Alexandrovich
                            Do you ever read what you write?

                            Yes, it doesn’t matter what you write there .... a specific question is artillery support for landing troops from the sea with a 155-mm battery! How will you support?
                            1. Sergey Aleksandrovich
                              Sergey Aleksandrovich 28 June 2022 11: 21
                              -1
                              Batteries of 155-mm self-propelled guns do not float, they move overland on tracked and wheeled chassis.
                              1. Serg65
                                Serg65 28 June 2022 12: 01
                                +2
                                Quote: Sergey Alexandrovich
                                Batteries of 155-mm self-propelled guns do not float,

                                That's why I offered you a large barge and a solid tug! wink
                                The lady bought a parrot, brought it home and asks ...
                                parrot, can you speak?
                                To which the parrot responded..
                                I can talk, can you fly?
                                It was nice to talk hi
                  2. EvilLion
                    EvilLion 28 June 2022 11: 04
                    -1
                    More powerful cannons can be mounted on the ship. Plus helicopters. That is, this problem is being solved. The question is the expediency of crawling under such a thing.
                    1. Sergey Aleksandrovich
                      Sergey Aleksandrovich 28 June 2022 11: 28
                      -2
                      What does crawl mean? That is, you are counting on the fact that the enemy will not have a single battery of 155-mm howitzers and not a single tank platoon to, for example, prevent the landing.
                      Or you are going to counter land howitzers with firing ranges of more than 40 km with the A-192M ship-based anti-aircraft gun mount, which has a range of no more than 23 km and lacks guided and cluster munitions.
                      1. Repellent
                        Repellent 28 June 2022 11: 48
                        +3
                        Quote: Sergey Alexandrovich
                        you are going to counter land howitzers with firing ranges of more than 40 km with the A-192M shipborne anti-aircraft gun mount, which has a range of no more than 23 km and lacks guided and cluster munitions

                        Ufff... heavy you, however.

                        155-mm howitzers (as well as air defense) - during the landing, they will choke on the same Caliber, MLRS and aviation, incl. helicopters.

                        The BDK is not to fight, they are about "take it - drop it off."

                        And you organized such a flame here ... on an empty, practically, place. IMHO, yes.
                        1. Sergey Aleksandrovich
                          Sergey Aleksandrovich 28 June 2022 11: 54
                          -2
                          Are you going to hit the enemy's mobile 155-mm self-propelled guns and his tank units with "Caliber"? And do not open the secret, why so far they have not done and do not do it? And where are you going to take helicopters if you don't have helicopter carriers?
                          And how will unarmed BDKs land, if support ships are the same unarmed for work along the coast?
                          The author just writes that there are no helicopter carriers, or even any modern naval artillery.
                          1. Repellent
                            Repellent 28 June 2022 11: 58
                            +2
                            Quote: Sergey Alexandrovich
                            Are you going to hit the enemy's mobile 155-mm self-propelled guns and his tank units with "Caliber"? And do not open the secret, why so far they have not done and do not do it? And where are you going to take helicopters if you don't have helicopter carriers?
                            And how will unarmed BDKs land, if support ships are the same unarmed for work along the coast?

                            Are you talking about a "spherhorse in a vacuum", or about a specific Odessa?
                            1. Sergey Aleksandrovich
                              Sergey Aleksandrovich 28 June 2022 12: 00
                              -3
                              Surely there will be no enemy howitzer batteries in Odessa? There won't be one? And there will be no tanks there, and air defense is completely suppressed, and aviation will be able to work massively?
                              1. Repellent
                                Repellent 28 June 2022 12: 02
                                +3
                                Quote: Sergey Alexandrovich
                                In Odessa

                                That is, we are talking about Odessa? I'm not interested in spheroconi.
                                1. Sergey Aleksandrovich
                                  Sergey Aleksandrovich 28 June 2022 12: 06
                                  -2
                                  Is there nothing else on the Black Sea coast?
                                  1. Repellent
                                    Repellent 28 June 2022 12: 10
                                    +2
                                    Quote: Sergey Alexandrovich
                                    Is there nothing else on the Black Sea coast?

                                    There's a lot out there. What are we talking about now? I repeat - the assault on Poti - Batumi is not offered, it's not interesting negative
                                  2. Sergey Aleksandrovich
                                    Sergey Aleksandrovich 28 June 2022 12: 16
                                    -3
                                    With such questions, contact the General Staff.
                                  3. Repellent
                                    Repellent 28 June 2022 12: 23
                                    +2
                                    Quote: Sergey Alexandrovich
                                    With such questions, contact the General Staff

                                    That is, as expected - the conversation is "nothing".

                                    PS: don't be rude, Syarroja negative
                                  4. The comment was deleted.
                      2. Serg65
                        Serg65 28 June 2022 12: 18
                        +1
                        Quote: Sergey Alexandrovich
                        you are going to counter land howitzers with firing ranges of more than 40 km with the A-192M shipborne anti-aircraft gun mount, which has a range of no more than 23 km and lacks guided and cluster munitions

                        No, it's not goodbye...
                        Sergey Alexandrovich, the practice of landing an amphibious assault implies the following actions .. at least 3 days in advance, DRGs are sent to the area of ​​​​the proposed landing to identify mine dangers on land and at sea. A full reconnaissance of the terrain in the area of ​​the future landing is carried out by all available radio, air, space, and technical means at least a week in advance. In three hours, according to all reconnaissance means, the landing area is systematically transformed into a lunar landscape with the help of missiles, UAVs, aviation, attack helicopters and naval artillery (exactly in the sequence in which I indicated) and only then does the landing begin, and its transport helicopters begin with assault groups of marines on board, and only after that landing craft with equipment and personnel begin to approach the shore.
                        That is, your howitzer must try very hard to stay alive in order to make at least 2 shots towards the sea!
                        1. Repellent
                          Repellent 28 June 2022 12: 25
                          +2
                          Quote: Serg65
                          That is, your howitzer must try very hard to stay alive

                          Sergey, greetings, Roman. Do not waste gunpowder, I found out a little higher that people just crawled out to chat with their tongues ...
                          1. Serg65
                            Serg65 28 June 2022 14: 49
                            +4
                            hi Welcome Roman!
                            Quote: Repellent
                            people just crawled out to chat ...

                            Yes, he just likes howitzers laughing
                        2. Sergey Aleksandrovich
                          Sergey Aleksandrovich 28 June 2022 12: 30
                          -1
                          What kind of naval artillery are you going to process the coast? Is it possible that with the help of the 100-mm A-190, the firing range of which does not exceed 21 km? Where will the helicopters come from? Surely from helicopter carriers which are not.
                          1. Serg65
                            Serg65 28 June 2022 14: 45
                            +1
                            Quote: Sergey Alexandrovich
                            What kind of naval artillery are you going to process the coast?

                            As I understand it, except for naval artillery, your eyes didn’t catch on to anything else?
                            Quote: Sergey Alexandrovich
                            Where will the helicopters come from?

                            And no, you also saw helicopters ...
                            Helicopters ?, so these are the good old Ka-29s, which can be delivered to the landing zone both by frigates pr.11356, and by any equipped barge!
                        3. Alexander Vorontsov
                          30 June 2022 20: 14
                          0
                          Quote: Serg65
                          Sergey Aleksandrovich, the practice of landing involves the following actions .. at least 3 days in advance, DRGs are sent to the area of ​​​​the proposed landing to identify mine danger on land and at sea

                          Can you describe in more detail the mine hazard detection process?
                          1. Serg65
                            Serg65 1 July 2022 07: 12
                            +2
                            Quote: Alexander Vorontsov
                            Can you describe in more detail the mine hazard detection process?

                            laughing Poll vacationers ...... based on your version!
                        4. Alexander Vorontsov
                          30 June 2022 20: 20
                          0
                          Quote: Serg65
                          In three hours, according to all reconnaissance means, the landing area is systematically transformed into a lunar landscape with the help of

                          The greatest danger is posed by underexplored enemy artillery, which can be either well camouflaged in positions or, for the time being, hide in civilian infrastructure (houses, warehouses, garages, barns, utility rooms, etc.) almost impossible (in advance).

                          Therefore, your brilliant idea about the lunar landscape is complete crap.

                          Of course, if you do not want to use a nuclear weapon! And demolish to hell all the buildings within a radius of 40 km from the landing zone))) From sin)))

                          And what about the case, if the reconnaissance misses a few guns and when the ships approach and begin to land, they will begin to work at maximum pace.

                          Please write by what means you will ensure their prompt detection and destruction? Provided that there may be air defense hidden there.
                          1. Serg65
                            Serg65 1 July 2022 07: 14
                            +2
                            Quote: Alexander Vorontsov
                            Therefore, your brilliant idea about the lunar landscape is complete crap.

                            Complete crap, this is a landing in the city .... is that how you imagine a landing in Odessa? wassat
                          2. Serg65
                            Serg65 1 July 2022 07: 25
                            +2
                            Quote: Alexander Vorontsov
                            Please write by what means you will ensure their prompt detection and destruction? Provided that there may be air defense hidden there.

                            So that they would not be discovered, they must completely turn off the relay and radio communications, forbid them to walk at all, and also prohibit them from supplying them with vehicles! Analysis of images from space during the month will give you a complete picture of what is happening in the area of ​​interest!
              7. Alexey RA
                Alexey RA 27 June 2022 11: 58
                +2
                All this, of course, is good and noble. That's just the basis of all the thoughts on which the article is built is false.
                And the result is not a very beautiful thing: we can only perform one operation for sure. Demolish the whole world with strategic submarines. Other tasks such as local non-nuclear wars, counteraction, coastal defense - alas.

                The problem is that we can't accurately demolish the entire world with SSBNs. And Klimov, Timokhin and others mentioned in the article wrote about this repeatedly.
                The Navy, first of all, should not think about a special operation. Not about actions against the coast. Not about, God forgive me, anti-piracy activities off the coast of Africa. And about the solution of their main task, until the solution of which to do everything else is a mistake or a crime. And this task is to ensure the withdrawal of carriers of 40% of strategic SBCs from bases to position areas and ensure their security in these same areas. Only after a retaliatory strike is guaranteed in any development of the events of a major war, the Navy can be distracted by other tasks.
                Since we gave 40% of the SBCs to the fleet, the fleet must ensure their launch. Or, since we decided to occupy the fleet with tactical tasks, then we need to stop playing with SSBNs, cancel their construction, order PGRKs instead, and further develop the Navy as a waterfowl appendage of the army.
                1. EvilLion
                  EvilLion 27 June 2022 12: 37
                  -2
                  For this task, 95% of what Timokhin and Co. dream of is simply not needed. And "Moskva" should have been written off 20 years ago within the framework of this concept.
                  1. Alexey RA
                    Alexey RA 27 June 2022 13: 30
                    +2
                    Quote: EvilLion
                    For this task, 95% of what Timokhin and Co. dream of is simply not needed.

                    Ingratiatingly and how to provide air defense for shipborne anti-submarine groups of the outer boundary of the "bastion" on the right flank, in the area of ​​\uXNUMXb\uXNUMXbMedvezhiy Island? wink
                    1. frog
                      frog 27 June 2022 16: 44
                      0
                      What a vile cynic you are love
                    2. EvilLion
                      EvilLion 27 June 2022 18: 18
                      -2
                      To do, as in the guard, purely anti-aircraft ships. X)
                      1. Serg65
                        Serg65 28 June 2022 07: 45
                        0
                        Quote: EvilLion
                        eat, as in the guard, purely anti-aircraft ships.

                        With a big trailer of ammunition on the back with a string?
                        1. EvilLion
                          EvilLion 28 June 2022 11: 05
                          -1
                          And how many missiles were on the same "Moscow"? Theoretically, the entire air wing of an aircraft carrier can be shot down.
                          1. Alexey RA
                            Alexey RA 28 June 2022 11: 34
                            +1
                            Quote: EvilLion
                            And how many missiles were on the same "Moscow"? Theoretically, the entire air wing of an aircraft carrier can be shot down.

                            And practically further than 40 km, all these missiles can be excluded from the calculations, since the air defense system does not work beyond the horizon, and the enemy is not so crazy as to attack with aircraft at medium altitudes.
                          2. Serg65
                            Serg65 28 June 2022 11: 50
                            0
                            Quote: EvilLion
                            Theoretically, the entire air wing of an aircraft carrier can be shot down.

                            This is if the aircraft carrier is one on one with Moscow ... then theoretically yes.
                    3. Alexander Vorontsov
                      27 June 2022 22: 13
                      0
                      Quote: Alexey RA
                      Quote: EvilLion
                      For this task, 95% of what Timokhin and Co. dream of is simply not needed.

                      Ingratiatingly and how to provide air defense for shipborne anti-submarine groups of the outer boundary of the "bastion" on the right flank, in the area of ​​\uXNUMXb\uXNUMXbMedvezhiy Island? wink


                      I have 2 questions for the supporters of this concept.
                      First, everything related to the nuclear deterrence forces must ensure continuity of duty. Those. ANY tool that you seriously plan to attract to implement this concept should exist in sufficient quantity to ensure this very continuity.

                      If we are talking about an aircraft carrier, then we need 3 of them. And most importantly, they should be used only for this task. There is no need to write about the fact that you either drive to Syria, or to the Papuans, or you protect the strategists.


                      The second point - why provide air defense for these ships?
                      The key task for our opponents is the destruction of the boats themselves.

                      Starting the operation with the destruction of the "guards" ... this is stupid.

                      The only working scenario is when the enemy's submarines will simultaneously target our strategists (secretly!) And hit them at the same time.

                      And not so that first they destroy the cover ships and then they will look for strategists and attack them.

                      In addition, if we are talking about a sudden strike, then even if ... EVEN if our partners decide on such a scenario, their ability to form a volley is such ... that an aircraft carrier in passive defense mode can practically do nothing, fundamental.
                      How many planes are planned to have time to lift into the air?

                      If they dare, it will be a blow according to the principle "if you beat the king, don't miss" ... the density will be such that they will simply be swept away there.

                      Don't forget we only have a budget ratio of 10 to 1 against the US, excluding NATO. And without considering the quality aspect.
                      1. Serg65
                        Serg65 28 June 2022 08: 06
                        0
                        Quote: Alexander Vorontsov
                        I have 2 questions for the supporters of this concept.

                        Mr. Vorontsov, do you have any idea what the anti-submarine defense of the "bastions" by surface forces looks like, even in peacetime?
                        Have you ever wondered ... why the hell did the Soviet Navy deploy five OpEsks far from their homeland?
                        Quote: Alexander Vorontsov
                        The only working scenario is when the enemy's submarines will simultaneously target our strategists (secretly!) And hit them at the same time.

                        In order to target our strategists, it is necessary to break through the anti-submarine defense, and in order to break through the anti-submarine defense, it must first be destroyed!
                        There were many figures like you in the history of Russia ... the same was called for to be limited to torpedo boats ... but as a result, the concept of torpedo boats required the construction of cruisers!
                        1. Alexander Vorontsov
                          28 June 2022 11: 15
                          -1
                          Quote: Serg65
                          There were many figures like you in the history of Russia ... the same was called for to be limited

                          I didn't call for a limit.
                          I called for INCLUDING in the fleet, including small ships. And not everywhere, but in small water areas, in particular on the Black Sea.


                          In order to target our strategists, it is necessary to break through the anti-submarine defense, and in order to break through the anti-submarine defense, it must first be destroyed!

                          Do we have it?
                          1. Serg65
                            Serg65 29 June 2022 08: 40
                            +3
                            Quote: Alexander Vorontsov
                            I called for INCLUDING in the fleet, including small ships. And not everywhere, but in small water areas, in particular on the Black Sea.

                            So they are turned on and on .. and notice without your calls ... At the Black Sea Fleet, 4 Buyan-M, 1 Karakurt and 4 more are being built for the same fleet.
                            Quote: Alexander Vorontsov
                            Do we have it?

                            Not as many as we would like, but there are and continue to be built!
                2. Serg65
                  Serg65 28 June 2022 07: 43
                  0
                  Hello Alexey hi
                  Quote: Alexey RA
                  Since we gave 40% of the SBCs to the fleet, the fleet must ensure their launch.

                  And this is the most cunning trap for land laughing
                  In order to ensure the launch of 40% SBC carriers, it is necessary to eliminate the mine danger in the SSBN base areas, i.e. minesweepers are needed. It is necessary to move the enemy MAPL patrol areas as far as possible ... i.e. we need anti-submarines of different zones. To cover the anti-submarines, we need attack missile ships and air defense ships. To provide cover ships, support ships are needed ..... what etishka's mother, so this is again a whole fleet !!! belay tongue laughing
                  1. Alexey RA
                    Alexey RA 28 June 2022 11: 32
                    +2
                    Well, grandfather Krylov 110 years ago, in a report for Grigorovich's Duma speech, painted exactly the same picture: a balanced fleet is needed, and a small fleet is just a waste of money and failure to complete tasks.
                    Thus, if we had only destroyers and submarines, they would soon find themselves driven into Kronstadt, and the enemy would be the complete master of the entire sea up to a line about 40-50 miles, say, 100 versts from Kronstadt, and the enemy would not refuse oneself in the pleasure of seeing the effect of a bomb thrown from an airplane at least on Nevsky Prospekt.

                    Thus, you see that only a systematic, calculated struggle of the fleet against the fleet is possible, and the fleet is an organic whole, and the absence of any type of ships in it or their relative small number is not compensated for by the exaggerated development of the number of ships of another type - their excessive number will not give predominance over the enemy, but will only represent a waste of funds that, with a more correct ratio, would be used more profitably.
                    1. Serg65
                      Serg65 28 June 2022 11: 54
                      0
                      I say, all this has already happened ... and more than once, but there are stubborn people who maniacally love to step on this rake!
              8. Mikhail3
                Mikhail3 27 June 2022 12: 19
                -1
                Funny article. So, land view) Why do we need a warship? It must be understood that this is a ship that is capable of performing a combat mission. Which one? That's around this, as I understand it, and there are disputes. One part of the community believes that the combat mission of the ship is primarily to protect itself. Admiral Nelson is on one bridge, Fedya Ushakov is on the other, and they pathetically spin around each other, pouring fire on their mighty vehicles. Romance.
                Another part believes that a warship is a weapon platform that is designed to win a war. That the fleet is just a part of the armed forces, which should contribute to the overall victory. What do we see in this particular example, namely the Serpent's Island, gas platforms and the cruiser Moscow?
                The cruiser Moskva was part of the Black Sea Fleet. Is this cruiser suitable for achieving victory in the theater of the Black Sea, in a conflict with a coastal state? Completely unsuitable. Moreover, while reading an extensive response to the article, I was very touched by a detailed description of problems with engines. And if Moscow had approached the Serpentine quickly, would it not have been drowned so quickly and shamefully? Shooting from land guns.
                Question. And Moscow rearmed? If so, how? And if not, why not? Why do we have a helpless fleet in a well-defined theater? Why was money spent on it? and so on...
                1. Serg65
                  Serg65 28 June 2022 08: 53
                  0
                  Quote: Mikhail3
                  the fleet is simply part of the armed forces, which should contribute to the overall victory.

                  Logically! In peacetime, the army trains to win a future war on its training grounds, but what is the fleet doing at this time? You may remember or may have heard that in Soviet times there were such "fish Thursdays", you probably know that the USSR bought grain and sugar cane from abroad, well, of course, data on the sale of Soviet oil to the countries of Africa and East Asia did not pass you by ? So in all this there is also a large part of the activities of the USSR Navy in peacetime! Why did I remember those distant times, and who knows that everything is returning to normal and the role of the Russian Navy in ensuring the economic and political tasks facing our Motherland will increase many times over!
                  Quote: Mikhail3
                  Is this cruiser suitable for achieving victory in the theater of the Black Sea, in a conflict with a coastal state?

                  Of course, it’s not suitable, and you correctly noted it ... why is it not suitable? Yes, because it was built for other purposes! The logical question is ... for what other purposes? "Atlantes" and "Orlans" were built in order to move the patrol areas of the American AUGs from the borders of the USSR, as far as possible! And to win with a coastal state like Ukraine, they built "Sarychi". Purely my opinion ... the campaign of "Moscow" to the Serpentine, this is plugging the holes that arose due to the lack of AWACS aircraft!
                  Quote: Mikhail3
                  Shooting from land guns.

                  Oh, another 126 version?



                  Quote: Mikhail3
                  Why do we have a helpless fleet in a well-defined theater?

                  Why did you decide that we have a helpless fleet in this theater of action?
                  Did the Ukrainian ships shelled Sevastopol and landed troops on the Evpatoria beach? Or did ukroflot still manage to destroy the Crimean bridge? What is the helplessness?
                  1. Mikhail3
                    Mikhail3 28 June 2022 09: 26
                    0
                    It is gratifying that you take into account my conclusions without starting to argue frantically) Why is the fleet helpless? So for the results! What combat mission was performed by "Moscow"? Looks like none. Who drowned her and how? She was drowned either by boats, or from the shore, or both. Why couldn't she defend herself? Why was it not protected by the warrant, because naval ships must sail the sea as a combat-ready unit, ready to carry out a combat mission. Or I'm wrong? So it turns out - some terribly global goals are carefully described on pieces of paper, mountains of money have been written off for these purposes. The fleet is given a specific task near its native port ... and it completely fails the task. Conclusions? Unambiguous...
                    1. Serg65
                      Serg65 28 June 2022 09: 53
                      +2
                      Quote: Mikhail3
                      It is gratifying that you take into account my conclusions without starting to argue frantically)

                      My friend, I can argue With Klimov, Alexei RA, Andrey from Chelyabinsk, Boa constrictor KA and this dispute is purely technical.
                      To prove with foam at the mouth the need for a fleet ... why? There is such a comrade "Time" and this comrade always puts everything on the shelves!
                      Quote: Mikhail3
                      What combat mission was performed by "Moscow"?

                      There was only one task, coverage of the air situation in this area of ​​the sea!
                      Quote: Mikhail3
                      Who drowned her and how? She was drowned either by boats, or from the shore, or both. Why couldn't she defend herself?

                      I'm not a fan of guessing on coffee grounds!
                      Quote: Mikhail3
                      Or I'm wrong?

                      Whether you are wrong or not, I don’t know .... at the moment you are laying out the Thoreau cards and they don’t converge with you ... but you are still trying, in spite of this, to draw conclusions ... close to your view of the environment Wednesday.
                      Quote: Mikhail3
                      The fleet is given a specific task near the native port

                      smile Mikhail, what exactly was the task assigned to the fleet, enlighten my dark little head?
                      1. Mikhail3
                        Mikhail3 28 June 2022 15: 56
                        -1
                        Cool. The cruiser is sunk. Or do you need to be enlightened about this too? Did the sunken cruiser cope with its task? No, it didn't work out. Ask tarot cards on this score) Did global fleets circle around the cruiser, to counter which it was supposedly built and equipped? No, they didn't circle. And they didn't shoot. Globally, no one attacked. There were no superpowered opponents. And purely locally the cruiser died! People died! Almost in the mind of the native port! What is this demagoguery? Crap...
                        1. Serg65
                          Serg65 29 June 2022 08: 29
                          +3
                          Quote: Mikhail3
                          Damn ...

                          laughing I understand your stubbornness, but ... The cruiser is DROP, this is only your assumption, which you take as an axiom. The cruiser sank, for what reasons we do not know.
                          "Drowned" and "drowned" have completely different meanings!
                          Quote: Mikhail3
                          Did the sunken cruiser cope with its task?

                          Michael, what was his task?
                          And again some guesses!
                          Quote: Mikhail3
                          What is this demagoguery?

                          laughing If you notice, then I do not turn my assumptions into 100% statements!
                          1. Mikhail3
                            Mikhail3 29 June 2022 08: 38
                            -1
                            Is this paid?) Cruiser SAM UTOP ?! A small question. And where are the dozens of naval officers who are under investigation and in prison? It's not a shoe that fell into the water.
                            If the cruiser had the task of measuring the depth of the sea at that point, then he did it. I admit. In all other cases, it failed.
                            Your statements... Okay, let's not. In general, Soviet propaganda is back in the ranks and on the attack. No matter how wild and nonsensical the official point of view is, so be it! People won't understand! And the fact that the people will understand, the people are smart, and whoever is not very smart, will ask a smart neighbor, the officials do not take into account.
                            And the fact that such propaganda caused a complete rupture of the people with the authorities, the deepest non-popular distrust, because of which the USSR broke into pieces, officials do not understand this. They have such intelligence. Smart.
                            In general, you mercilessly fail your task. Outright. You work so sloppily that I'm beginning to suspect that this is a discredit on assignment. Otherwise, your strange speeches are difficult to explain ...
                            1. Repellent
                              Repellent 29 June 2022 08: 48
                              +2
                              Quote: Mikhail3
                              They have such intelligence. Smart.
                              In general, you mercilessly fail your task. Outright. You work so sloppily that I'm beginning to suspect that this is a discredit on assignment. Otherwise, your strange speeches are difficult to explain ...

                              The transition to personality is a consequence of the lack of intelligible arguments.

                              You leaked the dispute, outright, stop embarrassing yourself negative
                            2. Serg65
                              Serg65 29 June 2022 09: 04
                              +3
                              Quote: Mikhail3
                              Is that paid?)

                              It’s clear that you didn’t have enough for a normal discussion and you immediately switched to insults .... hmm ... oh ... and how such an opposition wants to seize power, I’ll never know!
                              Gain experience in communication, good luck to you! hi
                              1. Mikhail3
                                Mikhail3 29 June 2022 11: 53
                                -2
                                Discussions? Wonderful) Guys, our posts are right here, everyone can see, everyone can read ... However, apparently not everyone. But those who can see everything) Bad job guys. Very bad. You harm your employer specifically.
                                1. Repellent
                                  Repellent 29 June 2022 12: 05
                                  +1
                                  Quote: Mikhail3
                                  Bad job guys. Very bad. You harm your employer specifically

                                  Here you go. You have already appointed an "employer" to your opponent request

                                  This is all from a great mind and erudition, obviously. And a good command of the subject of conversation. And excellent conversational skills. yes

                                  funny character you are wink laughing
                                2. Serg65
                                  Serg65 29 June 2022 12: 11
                                  +3
                                  Quote: Mikhail3
                                  Bad job guys. Very bad. You harm your employer specifically.

                                  And then Ostap suffered!!! laughing good
                    2. DenVB
                      DenVB 28 June 2022 11: 15
                      +2
                      Quote: Mikhail3
                      Why is the fleet helpless? So for the results!

                      Actually it works quite well. It blocks Ukrainian shipping, causing considerable economic damage to Ukraine. Creates a threat of landing, forcing to keep decent forces in the Odessa area. It does not allow Ukraine to block our shipping and inflict considerable economic damage on us. Does not allow Ukraine to strike at our coast.

                      In general, even with its very limited capabilities, the Black Sea Fleet justifies itself.
              9. Sedoy
                Sedoy 27 June 2022 12: 34
                -3
                our fleet doesn’t really know how to do anything else.

                absolutely right ...
                he "didn't know how" already in the 80s of the last century ...
                but just like everything else...
                1. EvilLion
                  EvilLion 27 June 2022 12: 38
                  -2
                  It is strange to think that the Ground Forces of the USSR did not know how to do something.
                  1. Sergey Aleksandrovich
                    Sergey Aleksandrovich 27 June 2022 14: 55
                    +4
                    Something they really didn't know how to do. Losses of automotive equipment during the war in Afghanistan amounted to about 11 thousand units. The BTR-70/80s assigned to escort columns had a manual machine gun drive in a turret without a hatch. The ZU-23-2 in the back of a truck was the norm. It should be noted that the situation has not changed much since then. As before, ZU-23-2s are observed in bodies, without an automated drive, and the machine gun on the "Tiger" has a tape of limited length and again does not have a remote control from under the armor. The escort vehicles "Naparnik" and "Drok" promised by the industry on the basis of the Typhoon-VDV are somewhere far from the needs.
                    1. EvilLion
                      EvilLion 27 June 2022 18: 21
                      -3
                      The loss of light equipment from the United States in Afghanistan is no less.

                      The BTR-70/80s assigned to accompany the columns had a manual machine gun drive in the turret without a hatch.


                      It's called the Stryker, rich Yankees don't care to ride it. Only the BTR-70 also has a turret. X)

                      The norm was the ZU-23-2 in the back of a truck


                      They were very fashionable in the American army in Vietnam, and in Iraq. is called "gantrak". And they seem to have money for all this.
                      1. Sergey Aleksandrovich
                        Sergey Aleksandrovich 27 June 2022 18: 36
                        +2
                        The lack of a hatch on the turret makes it difficult to both observe and leave the vehicle.
                  2. frog
                    frog 27 June 2022 16: 46
                    0
                    Yes. For almost ten years, the advertising campaign was played ....
                  3. Sedoy
                    Sedoy 28 June 2022 18: 21
                    -1
                    what's so weird... :)
                    as always - "to the last war" ...
                    they came to Afghanistan - but there is no front ...
                    and no one taught to fight against the "partisans" ...
                    and there are no mountain companies - they disbanded after the war ...
                    it was there that they learned to fight with helicopters and attack aircraft (the experience of the Second World War did not fit) ...
                    the same "song" was also in the Caucasus - only the enemy is different and often, the same graduate, of your own military school ...
                    in Syria - an attempt to lick pi n to sov ...
                    now its - they decided to force it a la BTG - they screwed up, they returned to the tactics of the First World War - art and cheers ...
                2. Serg65
                  Serg65 28 June 2022 08: 57
                  -1
                  Quote: Sedoy
                  he "couldn't" already in the 80s of the last century ..

                  Couldn't what?
              10. squid
                squid 27 June 2022 12: 37
                -4
                1) the passage about "a cheap kamikaze drone instead of an expensive caliber" is not very clear. in general, a bayraktar costs much more than a cruise missile. and used it by the Ukrainians in such a forced rrli - due to the lack of their cr.
                2) as a carrier of cruise missiles for shelling Ukraine, the fleet is now losing its meaning - the drsmd has been canceled, these missiles can now be launched from the ground from near belgorod - and closer and cheaper
                3) mention of some helicopter carriers in the Black Sea. what kind of nonsense is this?! commercials are not far from well-known sectarians with their aircraft carriers. the black sea in our time is a small puddle, shot through from any coast. and the only reasonable *** bearer there is Crimea.

                in general, the author correctly smashes local flotophiles and the sect of aircraft carrier witnesses. quite rightly says that 25% of the budget for the fleet does not justify itself at all. but only at the same time he made his own mistakes.
                my opinion is that for a country like Russia, the fleet is the most useless type of sun. and 25% he absolutely does not deserve. funding should be reduced to 5-7%, the freed funds should be transferred to the ground forces. and if the flotophiles start yelling that this money will not be able to cover the SSBNs (one of their favorite arguments, even aircraft carriers tried to justify this), then you just need to abandon these very SSBNs. to make instead of them pgrk and mine mbrds, in the depths of their territory, where there are much more chances to protect them
                1. kristAl
                  kristAl 27 June 2022 13: 22
                  +1
                  my opinion is that for a country like Russia, the fleet is the most useless type of sun. and 25% he absolutely does not deserve. funding should be reduced to 5-7%, the freed funds should be transferred to the ground forces. and if the flotophiles start yelling that this money will not be able to cover the SSBNs (one of their favorite arguments, even aircraft carriers tried to justify this), then you just need to abandon these very SSBNs. to make instead of them pgrk and mine mbrds, in the depths of their territory, where there are much more chances to protect them

                  But when the air defense of Europe and Japan intercepts to hell with 30% of the PGRKs that will not be destroyed, I am silent about mine complexes with stationary coordinates. It's going to be a very fun time
                  1. squid
                    squid 27 June 2022 16: 05
                    -1
                    so it will also intercept the MBR PSB to hell. patrol areas are known - the Sea of ​​\uXNUMXb\uXNUMXbOkhotsk, the Barents Sea. if it doesn’t destroy these submarines at all before launch. the stationarity of the coordinates of the silo for interception does not matter at such distances
                  2. Mikhail3
                    Mikhail3 27 June 2022 16: 25
                    -2
                    And when US satellites point their own missiles at 100% of the nuclear submarine along the wake, it will be even more fun. Submarines have not been able to hide under water for a long time. The turbulent flow they leave cannot be hidden at all. Alas.
                  3. EvilLion
                    EvilLion 28 June 2022 11: 09
                    -1
                    And what about the air defense of Japan, when everything flies through the North Pole?
              11. Mustached Kok
                Mustached Kok 27 June 2022 12: 43
                +1
                There are many ideas in the article that are really ignored by the leadership of the Navy, although the experience of potential adversaries shows that the organization of control of the auxiliary equipment of a large ship (boats, drones and helicopters) allows solving some of the tasks without involving the limited resources of the ship itself. And although I am still skeptical about unmanned boats, all the same, any ship experiences a much wider range of restrictions and loads, without a person the chance of successful execution is lower than that of a UAV. But this does not negate the general prospects of the direction.

                But in Alexander's "confrontation" with the pair of Timokhin and Andrei from Ch., one mistake crept in.
                Using the example of the current situation with Ukraine and the situation with Georgia in 2008, you are considering the problems and needs of the fleet. But Timokhin and Andrey considered the concepts of the development of the fleet from the standpoint of a global confrontation, including a confrontation that turned into a global military conflict. Because of this, a situation arises when both concepts are simultaneously true and erroneous. Each of the authors drags the requirements for ships based on individual types of operation. You are considering the fleet solely from the tasks of local border conflicts in closed seas. they consider exclusively global confrontation in distant waters to counter enemy fleets from the North and Pacific directions. So it turns out for Timokhin and Andrey, the fleet has difficulties with work in small closed water areas. And you have problems with strategic operations in the far sea zone.

                None of you have yet agreed on the concept of the fleet so that it would cope with two types of tasks, local-tactical and global-strategic.
                1. Mikhail3
                  Mikhail3 27 June 2022 16: 27
                  0
                  From the point of view of the "global" confrontation, the fleet should not work along the coast? But they can’t destroy it from the shore, right? Can such ingenious global ideas be left on paper? Where is their place?
                  1. Mustached Kok
                    Mustached Kok 27 June 2022 19: 20
                    0
                    I somewhere argued that from the point of view of the "global" concept, it is NOT necessary to work along the coast? If yes, please remind me
                    In general, when solving strategic tasks (blocking the paths of enemy nuclear submarines, opening routes for their own nuclear submarines, long-range interception of the enemy fleet, constant "escort" of enemy formations in the ocean, etc.), long-range aerial reconnaissance and target designation, seaworthiness and organization will play a large role links in the connection. So it would be nice to learn how to operate both in closed water areas (for the Black Sea and Baltic Fleets) and in large open areas (Northern and Pacific Fleets).
                2. EvilLion
                  EvilLion 28 June 2022 11: 18
                  0
                  If your army is only busy restoring order somewhere near its border, then you should not even think about any far sea zone. And the most unpleasant thing for us is that the enemy, instigating the next orange goofs, does not risk anything, but even a small war can be put out for years with the involvement of tens of thousands of soldiers. But Timokhin and Co. do not want to see this. There will be a security zone 1000 km from the borders, then the development of the ocean fleet will begin without their advice.

                  To arrange a nuclear war and build some plans with the sinking of submarines with missiles, and in general to knock out a nuclear dobunka - this, excuse me, but to the doctor. And why? Because in such an operation, something will definitely go wrong, and even 10% of launched deployed carriers is completely unacceptable damage. I remind you that the USSR collapsed without any nuclear strike against it. Time to get your head out of the 1960s already.
              12. Ripap
                Ripap 27 June 2022 12: 45
                0
                I wrote here a long time ago. Russia needs exactly two fleets: the northern and the Pacific, in the Baltic and the black puddle, leave 3 corvettes and 1 submarine each, purely to be. The fleets in these lakes fully proved their complete uselessness back in WWI and WWII, and since then nothing has changed for the better for them.
                1. rusl4n
                  rusl4n 27 June 2022 14: 32
                  -1
                  What about positions? And to observe the honor of the Red Banner ... But what to cut on? But seriously, you are absolutely right.
                2. Vadmir
                  Vadmir 27 June 2022 18: 10
                  +2
                  in the Baltic and black puddles, leave 3 corvettes and 1 submarine each, purely to be.
                  Will not be enough. Right now, in the Black Sea, this is approximately the situation - there are only 3 ships out of ships with acceptable missile defense / air defense, but they can’t cope, hence the losses. That tug is lost due to lack of escort.
                  If there were no Snake Island and drilling platforms in the Black Sea, it would be possible to get by with three corvettes, but they are there, and there is also our own shipping that needs to be protected, enemy shipping and ports that need to be blocked. And then there is the Turkish Stream, the Crimean Bridge, which need to be protected and preserved.
                  And in the Baltic there is a whole Kaliningrad region, which can be blocked
                  1. Serg65
                    Serg65 28 June 2022 09: 05
                    0
                    Quote: Vadmir
                    And then there is the Turkish Stream, the Crimean Bridge, which need to be protected and protected.
                    And in the Baltic there is a whole Kaliningrad region, which can be blocked

                    Yes, all this is nonsense! Put floats on tanks, infantry fighting vehicles already know how to swim, give soldiers inflatable rings ... here you have the defense of the Turkish Stream, and the Crimean Bridge, and the supply of Kaliningrad! wink laughing
                3. common man
                  common man 28 June 2022 14: 30
                  +1
                  Quote: RipRap
                  in the Baltic and black puddles, leave 3 corvettes and 1 submarine each, purely to be.

                  I wonder how to capture and hold Serpent's Island in the absence of a fleet?
              13. Sedoy
                Sedoy 27 June 2022 12: 45
                -1
                "flotophiles" did not consider the scenario of a special military operation in Ukraine

                And why would they consider it ... :)
                in our country, the ALL doctrine of all the AFRF did not consider the army as a "military force" capable of conducting combined arms operations at the level of the Second World War ...
                the entire army was sharpened for "police operations", such as "Syria" ...
                sort of, fuck-no-vaya tracing paper with pin-do-owls ...
                "We have mastered the general view, now the details should not be skipped" ©
                but no - it's not smart enough ...
                "monkey" is easier ...
              14. Smirnov Sergey
                Smirnov Sergey 27 June 2022 14: 59
                +2
                Think very narrowly, author.
                You are comparing the budget of the entire Navy. At the same time, the task of the Navy is not only to participate in a special operation, but only 1 fleet out of 4 participates there, and one small flotilla. At the same time, for the rest of the fleet, no one canceled either the protection of the near sea zone, or the duty of strategic nuclear forces, or the protection of duty zones. And I note that the Black Sea Fleet was far from normal in 2014 and under sanctions they could not make candy out of it in 8 years, including because we spend a year, or even 1.5, on a new ship
              15. DO
                DO 27 June 2022 15: 46
                0
                Of course, with regard to AWACS, the most ideal option would be to create a light AWACS aircraft, and not necessarily a carrier-based one. Such planes are needed literally everywhere. However, we do not have a project of such an aircraft ready for serial production. But there is a helicopter.

                The functions of the AWACS aircraft can be performed by the Altius UAV, at first with a ready-made suspended radar container. The AWACS helicopter is less efficient at sea due to the high fuel consumption, the reserves of which on board the ship carrying this helicopter are limited.
                The experience of military operations shows that the easiest way to pull out a boat at sea is by helicopter. AWACS detects the boat long before it approaches the ship, and the attack helicopter catches up and destroys the ATGM.

                The fighting around Zmeiny Island showed that the boat could well be destroyed by a strike drone. And theoretically - and a kamikaze drone.
                Attack helicopters could carry out (or at least threaten to do so) low-altitude breakthroughs deep into the territory of Ukraine from the Black Sea.

                Here it is difficult to object to the concept of helicopter attacks on the coast from the sea. The only thing that could be added is the assumption that for such attacks that are dangerous for pilots, it is advisable to create unmanned attack helicopters (or modernize existing old helicopters) controlled by the co-pilot-operator of the second helicopter, which, if possible, "does not climb into hell."
              16. acetophenone
                acetophenone 27 June 2022 15: 49
                -1
                - Comrade, nakoymit me and sleep, - said Vladimir Ilyich in one well-known anecdote.
                Looks like our fleet cosplay Mr Ulyanov.
              17. bk0010
                bk0010 27 June 2022 16: 22
                +3
                Well, our fleet is not fighting even by 5%, not to mention 25%.
                So he didn't get that much. In addition, transfer 8 SSBNs and half of the means to ensure their deployment to the Strategic Missile Forces: this is not a means for the fleet, but a task.
                All that is very expensive and in fact absolutely useless in the scenario that we have today.
                And tomorrow there will be a different scenario and what will you do?
                And all of a sudden, Timokhin and other flotophiles also came up with 1001 explanations why Russia shouldn't have these planes.
                Not from Russia, but from the fleet. Feel the difference?
                The Americans are doing everything to keep the Russian fleet without helicopter carriers, and our flotophiles agree with the Americans.
                Again, not so: in our fleet, helicopter carriers are not the highest priority in the list of needs for ships.
                That is, the meaning of the ship, whose cost is 40 billion rubles, is to, at the risk of being fired upon by anti-ship missiles and Brimstone missiles, fire from ... a cannon itself. By ... boats ?!
                Well, there the Americans put ATGMs on their littoral ships to fight boats. Do you think it's fundamentally better?
                However, this is not the only oddity in the text. Somehow, the logic of the article suggests that we consider the battle for Serpentine as the main task for the fleet.
                Because only the fleet could prevent flights from Romania through the Black Sea. Now they have brought air defense to the island, but it is constantly being hammered. Yes, the island will not be drowned, but people are sorry.
                After all, there is nothing on the island, and therefore, it does not pose any threat.
                And how to solve the problem? Do not use ships, there is nothing on the island. Let them carry what they want, bomb whom they want... Yes?
                This should be expressed in the fact that 200 km of the western coast of Ukraine, to a depth of 20 to 100 km, should become a "front" for the fleet.
                Naval weapons and their use are VERY expensive, if the task can be solved without them, then it is better to solve without them.
                The same Odessa Oil Refinery was supposed to be destroyed not by expensive Calibers, but by cheap kamikaze drones.
                Recall the result of the drone strike on the Rostov Oil Refinery? Two drones with a total cost of 300 thousand greenery caused a fire of 20 square meters, which was successfully extinguished.
                But there is a helicopter (DRLO).
                Yes, but it's under renovation. And there is very little joke in this joke.
              18. Ivanushka Ivanov
                Ivanushka Ivanov 27 June 2022 16: 28
                -2
                In general, the author is right. But each author has his "favorite toys".

                Any gigantic and expired junk with huge crews is bad. But the Helicopter Carrier... - MUCH WORSE...



                Here are all the horrors of unfortunate Moscow, multiplied by the loss of hundreds of helicopters in one session ... a team - several thousand. Yes, and jumping galloping gapoks with the help of helicopters on a coast oversaturated with all sorts of crap does not make much sense - dill is a witness to this.

                And so, yes. Large ships for modern Russia are not relevant. We do not intend to transport (and escort) equipment, cargo and troops to other continents in war conditions. They won’t let them seize territory from the natives with the help of an aircraft carrier.

                To escort the Boreys, we need rather high-speed specialized small vessels: PLO + self-defense (defense of the adjacent water surface) missile defense / air defense (Shells, Torahs) + carriers of Zircons / Calibers for target designation from the outside (if any surface dangerous target appears). Large air defenses of the S-400/500 type - escort from the coast and islands, which are scattered throughout the waters of all our seas.

                Small high-speed ships (missile, PLO) protected by local defense systems such as Pantsir and Tor - this is the optimal look for the available Russian fleet. Missile corvettes are quite a relevant thing - if it is NOT EXPENSIVE. Let's start with the fact that the ship - as a carrier - is no better and no worse than others - land and air. Moreover, water is an ideal road that does not require maintenance. There can always be a situation where the waterway will be optimal. The Anglo-Saxons focus specifically on water delivery vehicles and wars, and are successful in this.

                And it is necessary to take into account such specifics. If in the Far East or in the North Seas - attacks by all kinds of guided missiles or drones, as well as by aircraft - are unlikely (there is more of a threat from the depths of the sea), then in the Mediterranean, Black and Baltic - this is the main threat.

                Accordingly, in the northern seas, emphasis should be placed on PLO. There it is enough to have one Shell installation for a corvette. But in the Baltic and the Black Sea - more emphasis on repelling attacks by boats, torpedoes, drones, missile-guided aircraft - two Shells, protection against torpedoes and kamikaze boats - is simply a must. This is not counting the actual payload in the form of cruise missiles. Yes, cruise missiles are the gold of the Russian fleet.
                1. Vadmir
                  Vadmir 27 June 2022 18: 01
                  +3
                  To escort the Boreys, we need rather high-speed specialized small vessels: PLO + self-defense (defense of the adjacent water surface) missile defense / air defense (Shells, Torahs) + carriers of Zircons / Calibers for target designation from the outside (if any surface dangerous target appears).
                  Well, how to squeeze all of the above into a hull smaller than 1500-2000 tons of displacement? And this is no longer a mosquito fleet, these are corvettes. But even a corvette is limited by its seaworthiness and range. It can only work in the near sea zone. A little further, frigates are already needed, and destroyers in the ocean.
                  In the narrowness and near its own coast, Borea, of course, must be accompanied, but support will not hurt him in positional areas.
                  Boreas, clinging to its shore, loses a fair share of its advantages. Its location must be unknown, only in this case it can launch ballistic missiles.
                  Large air defenses of the S-400/500 type - escort from the coast and islands, which are scattered throughout the waters of all our seas.
                  The Ukrainian war has already clearly proved that the capabilities of coastal complexes are not enough. We need ships with strong air defense / missile defense, but this cannot be implemented in a small hull or it will have to be done separately by RTOs, MPKs, Small anti-aircraft ships - but this is nonsense and too expensive. Now is the time for universal ships. And this means at least the size of a frigate or even a destroyer, because even on a corvette it will not be possible to place air defense of the S-300, S-350, S-400 level. And it is necessary. So that the ship can not only protect itself, but also cover escort ships.
                  1. Ivanushka Ivanov
                    Ivanushka Ivanov 27 June 2022 22: 10
                    -1
                    Well, how to squeeze all of the above into a hull smaller than 1500-2000 tons of displacement? And this is no longer a mosquito fleet, these are corvettes. But even a corvette is limited by its seaworthiness and range. It can only work in the near sea zone. A little further, frigates are already needed, and destroyers in the ocean.
                    In the narrowness and near its own coast, Borea, of course, must be accompanied, but support will not hurt him in positional areas.


                    Well, a corvette is not only a completely shore. And not only the coast. Do you offer such an option for a corvette or destroyer to sail beyond Borea everywhere? What is the purpose of escort? Escort the boat at maximum speed to the area where the boat becomes invisible. Moreover, the route must be chosen in such a way that the enemy submarine does not stick to the tail. Over-accompaniment - can be harmful and dangerous.

                    The Ukrainian war has already clearly proved that the capabilities of coastal complexes are not enough. We need ships with strong air defense / missile defense, but this cannot be implemented in a small hull or it will have to be done separately by RTOs, MPKs, Small anti-aircraft ships - but this is nonsense and too expensive. Now is the time for universal ships. And this means at least the size of a frigate or even a destroyer, because even on a corvette it will not be possible to place air defense of the S-300, S-350, S-400 level. And it is necessary. So that the ship can not only protect itself, but also cover escort ships.


                    You are confusing warm with red. S-400/500 is a serious air defense. In his post, mentioning it, he primarily had in mind the Northern Fleet and the Far East - in the light of air cover for the same submarines.

                    Anti-aircraft air defense ships in small water areas are not needed at all. This is absurd. It is enough for the ship to defend itself (and its weapons). Following your logic, we will return to the mastodons again. In the case of the Black or Baltic Sea - my opinion is 2 Shells or Thors per ship. Everything else I have already written above.

                    Where did the big and heavy ships come from? That's right - a big ship - a big gun, range. Now this is not relevant. The Corvette carries missiles that can destroy or disable an Aircraft Carrier - even without access to the open ocean. However, a high-quality corvette may well, in the event of a real war, go even further than it is supposed to according to the state. It is much easier to protect it due to its small size - the destroyer did not even stand nearby. And the loss of a small ship would not be so depressing.
                    1. Ivanushka Ivanov
                      Ivanushka Ivanov 27 June 2022 22: 44
                      -1
                      Yes, these are different ships - a purely missile corvette and a PLO corvette. But both of them should have self-defense means: Shell / Tor (1-2 pieces), something against torpedoes and something against fast surface targets such as a kamikaze boat.
                    2. DenVB
                      DenVB 27 June 2022 23: 20
                      +2
                      Quote: Ivanushka Ivanov
                      It is much easier to protect it due to its small size - the destroyer did not even stand nearby.

                      laughing Do you think they will miss the corvette?
                      1. Ivanushka Ivanov
                        Ivanushka Ivanov 28 June 2022 10: 42
                        0
                        ))) You clearly had problems with mathematics. You are probably hearing about the theory of probability for the first time.
                        These are our clubs and naval commanders ...

                        Phew ... Here is one of the options for the composition of the fleets.

                        A. Northern Fleet. Apart from narrow-profile technical courts. Submarines are the foundation of the foundations. Here's where to spend your money.

                        1. Kuznetsov. The entire range of weapons (including Zircons) + air defense type S-400/500. Convert to a PLO ship with helicopters and small aircraft of the PO-2 type
                        2. One cruiser - the entire range (including Zircons) + air defense type S-400/500
                        3. Four destroyers, of which 2 - with a bias towards PLO (at least 30 knots), 2 - air defense.
                        4. 20-25 Corvettes.
                        5. PLO aviation - be sure to include in the fleet system

                        15 corvettes - PLO (mandatory speed of at least 30 knots). Armament: PLO systems, 1 Shell, anti-torpedo systems, protection against high-speed unmanned surface kamikaze boats - a rapid-fire long-range anti-aircraft gun with a total radius of 360 degrees. (2 pcs.); several medium-range guided missiles for external target designation. Helipad. 2 powerful PLO quadrocopters.

                        10 missile-armed corvettes. Caliber/Zircon - maximum number, 1 (360 pcs.). Helipad.

                        B. Pacific Fleet - the same, without an aircraft carrier.

                        B. Baltic Fleet (Black Sea Fleet). PLO is provided by a system of buoys and aviation.

                        1 ASW destroyer, at least 30 knots

                        10-15 missile-armed Corvettes. Caliber/Zircon - maximum number, 2 shells (torus), anti-torpedo systems, protection against high-speed unmanned surface boats-kamikaze - rapid-fire long-range anti-aircraft gun with a total radius of 360 degrees. (2 pcs.). Helipad. Missiles of medium-short range for external target designation.

                        This is where to invest money - To develop a system (single network) of buoys along the entire water border with a maximum width, especially in critical water areas. When we build ships, the result is not always known there. Here the result is 100% guaranteed. The costs will definitely be less than the construction of an aircraft carrier, but the point is dozens of times more.
                        1. Ivanushka Ivanov
                          Ivanushka Ivanov 28 June 2022 12: 09
                          0
                          And here's what else you can master (North, East). Floating air defense platforms (with elements of anti-aircraft defense) under the S-400/500 (with Shells) - at key points.
              19. Fedorovich
                Fedorovich 27 June 2022 20: 05
                +3
                Let's start with the fact that the missiles must be delivered to the launch line, which RTOs are far from always capable of. Or did we suddenly have a CD with a circumplanetary range?
              20. Altmann
                Altmann 27 June 2022 20: 38
                0
                I'm just an educated layman. After the death of the cruiser, MOSCOW carefully read all the articles and I think I understood this issue a little. Thanks for this article, which I think is the perfect summary of the Russian marina problem. Thank you, written in a way that I understand. am
              21. acetophenone
                acetophenone 27 June 2022 22: 32
                +1
                Quote: Fedorovich
                Or did we suddenly have a CD with a circumplanetary range?

                ...I ask you one thing: do not speak beautifully...
              22. The comment was deleted.
              23. DenVB
                DenVB 27 June 2022 23: 28
                0
                It is strange that the author in the GPV-2020 table did not notice 24 percent of the expenditure on the Air Force. Which also turned out to be useless only slightly less than completely.
                1. EvilLion
                  EvilLion 28 June 2022 13: 00
                  0
                  Only in your empty skull. Although it is useless to explain something to stupid people who write all sorts of nonsense about air supremacy, without even understanding the meaning of this term. In fact, it can be seen that the cost of the Air Force should have been doubled, or even tripled, because there is simply not enough equipment, 200-300 sorties per day are not enough even to work in the interests of the ground forces, and stupid people are waiting for some kind of flights over central or western Ukraine.

                  This is even without taking into account the fact that the very presence of aviation forces the Armed Forces of Ukraine to use tactics that give not the maximum efficiency of maneuver, but the maximum opportunity to hide from a raid, which means less opportunity to counteract our ground forces.
                  1. DenVB
                    DenVB 28 June 2022 13: 04
                    0
                    Quote: EvilLion
                    Only in your empty skull.

                    Have you stopped drinking? Some you today are not in your opinion smart and polite.
                2. insafufa
                  insafufa 28 June 2022 14: 06
                  -1
                  Which also turned out to be useless only slightly less than completely.
                  And where did you see that the Air Force is useless compared to the Air Force fleet, they do not eat their bread for nothing
                  It is strange that the author in the GPV-2020 table did not notice 24 percent of the expenditure on the Air Force.
                  The Air Force is not only airplanes but also helicopters. Here, helicopters and attack aircraft do not allow the enemy to raise his head because of their action, the enemy moves only at night and with toad jumps without going far from residential buildings. All-Ukrainian Armed Forces repent that they do not have air defense and air force, and Russian aviation is interfering with them. Unfortunately, the Navy cannot boast of this.
              24. insafufa
                insafufa 28 June 2022 12: 38
                -1
                I agree with the author of the article in everything you need to stop dreaming about a crane in the sky and start catching tits for a start that are in your hand. Flotophiles always cite as an example the fact that the Turks, having not received the F-35В for their counterpart Juan Carlos, are forced to put bayraktar and akinchi on it, but initially they planned to base unmanned weapons since the project had an unmanned aircraft control center that allows you to control an armada of unmanned aerial vehicles. If we cannot build large warships, even if we are strong in the near sea zone, then with dreams of oceanic campaigns and battles we run the risk of being left without the Adekbander muzzle of covering our coastal waters. The experience of the great patriotic warrior says that large surface forces will sit in bases and shoot their gifts from there until they sink. And most of the battleships were sunk by aircraft, not always deck-based more often than land-based. You need to stop dreaming and you need to finally see the light, you don’t need to look for an ideal, you need a working version, the Stalinist seven was not an ideal ship, but escort corvettes from components and assemblies of whaling ships broke the back of Dönnit’s wolf packs as a workhorse.