The role of the fleet in maintaining US global leadership

On the role of the fleet in modern warfare

As you know, in October 2022, J. Biden approved a new US National Security Strategy. On its basis, the National Defense Strategy and the US Nuclear Strategy were adopted, which determine the prospects for the development of the US Armed Forces in the medium term.

From an analysis of these documents, it follows that the White House does not at all refuse to solve international problems through the use or threat of use of force. At the same time, preventive use of nuclear weapons is allowed weapons. Under these concepts, programs have been adopted to equip aircraft with the latest MBT models. The main task in these strategies is to contain Russia and China. And the Navy plays a leading role in this containment.

Earlier, in 2020, the US Armed Forces Commander-in-Chief developed a concept called “Multi-sphere Confrontation: Development of Joint Actions of the US Armed Forces in the XNUMXst Century.” The role of the Navy as a branch of the Armed Forces is defined in this document in the section “Superiority at Sea. Multi-Domain Naval Power,” which states that naval forces should play a leading role in possible conflicts with Russia and China.

These same doctrinal provisions are embodied in the US naval strategy. It is known as "21st Century Seapower" and is the primary vision document of the United States Navy. In accordance with its provisions, the main tasks of the Navy are defined:

- access to all operating environments of combat operations,
- deterring potential aggressors,
- control of sea communications,
- projection of military power from the sea,
- ensuring freedom of navigation and safety at sea.

To carry out its tasks, the fleet must have the appropriate forces and means.

Prospects for the development of the US Navy

To implement the key provisions of the “Sea Power of the 21st Century,” plans for the development of the American fleet, which are set out in documents such as: “Strategic Directions of the Secretary of the US Navy” (2021) and in the document of the National Naval Forces - “US Navy Development Plan” (2022). Also annually, under the leadership of the NSH, the Navy prepares a “Report to Congress on the Long-Term Shipbuilding Plan,” containing a detailed program for the construction of ships and auxiliary vessels for the next five years, as well as plans for the development, financing and construction of fleet forces for the coming 30-year period.

In 2020, the Navy adopted a new shipbuilding program, according to which the number of ships in the fleet is planned to increase from 2035 to 300 units by 355, and to increase its number to 2051-500 units by 680. This number will also include unmanned robotic systems.

A detailed shipbuilding plan was submitted to Congress in 2022. It contained three alternative options for the construction of fleet forces, two of which provide for the presence of 2052 warships and 316 support vessels in the Navy by the end of 327. These plans did not require additional funding, while the third option involved increasing the number of ships to 367 units and a significant increase in costs.

Whatever one may say, the basis of the combat power of any fleet is its ships - surface and underwater. Therefore, in order to achieve a new qualitative state of the fleet forces, their radical renewal is expected. Thus, from 2023 to 2052, simultaneously with the construction of new ships, it is planned to exclude about 300 ships and vessels from the fleet, including:

- eight AVMA, 79 large NK class cruisers, destroyers, frigates, 42 small surface ships;
- 46 nuclear submarines, of which 4 SSGNs, 14 SSBNs;
- 32 landing ships, 33 combat support ships and 34 auxiliary ships.

AVMA Harry Truman at sea

According to the plans, the system of combat command and control of fleet forces in naval theaters of operations should undergo a significant transformation, as a component of the Unified Combat Command System (USCS) of forces being created in the US Department of Defense in 2019. The UAS is necessary for more effective management of fleet operations during multi-sphere confrontation with the enemy.

The ESBU project, approved by the Minister of Defense in 2022, formed the basis of the “Strategy for creating a unified system of combat command and control of the Armed Forces in multi-sphere operations.” The naval component of the ESBU is being developed under the Overmatch project, as an integral part of the concept of a unified multi-sphere naval power.

In accordance with this project, the first 4 aircraft carriers are being modernized as command posts for AUG and deck control aviation fleet operational units. Completion of work is scheduled for the end of 2025. It is also planned to combine all electronic systems of formation ships, combat and support aviation of the AUG into a single high-speed information network. In the future, it is planned to unite all ships of the main classes, combat and reconnaissance aircraft of the Navy into a common information and control network in the theater of operations. This, according to the Navy command, will expand the strike capabilities of the fleet's operational formations. In general, the development of the ECU is moving in the direction of optimizing the network architecture, increasing the data transfer speed when working with control centers on different theaters of operations, and ensuring reliable communication between fleet combat units and headquarters centers.

To more effectively counter the rapidly growing PLA fleet, the Americans developed the concept of “Dispersed Operations” for the Asia-Pacific region. The essence of the concept comes down to dispersing naval groups as they move to the combat area. This should make it more difficult for the enemy to detect, classify, track and destroy ships before they arrive in the BD area.

In accordance with this concept, the American fleet should include a smaller (compared to the current) number of cruisers and destroyers (about 80 units by 2040), but a larger (relative to 2023) number of Constellation-class guided missile frigates, as well as “ Independence" and "Freedom". It is planned to have at least 2040 corps in the fleet by 70.

Independence-class littoral zone ship squadron

In addition, to increase the combat capabilities of the fleet, a number of R&D projects are being implemented within the framework of the Ghost Fleet Overlord program to create unmanned surface robotic systems. According to the Navy command, uncrewed ships (UCS) should in the future replace some of the missile and artillery, anti-submarine and mine countermeasures ships. During operations, BECs must reduce personnel losses by preserving large-displacement manned ships.

According to already adopted programs, the construction of AVMA type “J. Ford", Columbia-class SSBN, Virginia block-V submarine, Orly Burke-class EM and other ships. However, financial and technological difficulties, the lack of necessary personnel and labor resources, and shipbuilding capacities are shifting the timing of their construction “to the right.” But, despite this, the leadership of the US Navy continues to improve the means of armed warfare at sea, paying increased attention to the further development of naval platforms, the Unified Force Control System, and hypersonic weapons. The development of the fleet's submarine forces receives special attention from the Navy leadership.

Directions for the development of US submarine forces

Let's consider some directions for the development of the US Navy's submarine forces in the near future, without including NPA/AUV in the review, since this is the topic of a separate big conversation. Now let's talk about the nuclear submarines of the US Navy.

As is known, today submarines are the most effective means of gaining supremacy at sea and launching missile strikes against coastal targets. They can also carry out a survey of the combat area (CA), while conducting:

- covert search and destruction of enemy submarines and autonomous uninhabited underwater vehicles (AUVs);
- combating sea mines with the help of our own AUVs and combat swimmers placed on board;
- damage to the grids of stationary GAS for detecting underwater and surface objects and their cable lines, navigation systems and communication line cables;
- disabling pipelines and oil production platforms, as well as installing our own hydroacoustic detection systems and navigation aids.

SSNs are constantly being updated, greedily absorbing the latest achievements of science and technology, becoming an increasingly formidable instrument of armed warfare at sea. Today, R&D to give new capabilities to submarines is mainly concentrated on three areas of their development and improvement:

- increasing the payload (portable missile, torpedo, mine weapons, non-propelled guns and other weapons of war at sea) and expanding its range;
- implementation of the concept of a “fully electrified ship”;
- and a modular submarine as a carrier of autonomous combat systems.

Thus, to increase the payload and expand its range it is assumed:

- placing and launching weapons outside a durable casing (PC). This frees up the internal volume of the PC to accommodate additional payload;
- equipping the UAV with systems for storing, releasing and receiving and controlling AUVs and unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), which will increase its combat capabilities.

As part of the creation of a “fully electrified ship” it is envisaged:

- creation of new generation electrical equipment;
- development of electric propulsion motors (HEM), which use the effect of high-temperature superconductivity (HTSC);
- integration of the electrical power system and the ship’s nuclear power plant;
- creation of a shaftless propulsion system located outside the PC;
- replacement of steam, pneumatic and hydraulic actuators with electric ones.

All this will make it possible to reduce the weight and size characteristics of technical systems (TS), improve the overall layout of the submarine, increase the payload by freeing up weights and volumes inside the PC, and increase the survivability and maintainability of submarines. Automation of the control and management processes of the ship's vehicle will reduce the number of crew and increase the autonomy of the submarine's navigation in terms of provisions.

These innovations are already being partially implemented on ships undergoing modernization and in the creation of new generation submarines, in particular on the Virginia block-5 submarines (the so-called “Advanced Virginia”). Their construction is expected until 2037 and is carried out jointly by two shipbuilding companies: General Dynamics at the Electric Boat Division shipyard and Northrop-Grumman at the Newport News Shipbuilding shipyard.

Virginia-class nuclear submarine returns to base

The lead SSN of the Advanced Virginia type should enter service with the Navy by the end of 2024. It will be equipped with an additional section 25,31 m long with 4 UVPs, for 28 Tomahok CRBD or several AUVs. For the release and reception of AUVs or transporters of combat swimmers, it is planned to equip the UVP with a telescopic retractable device, which is already successfully used on SSGNs of the “Converted Ohio” type. The Virginia-class submarines currently in service are intended to replace the Ohio SSGN and are more focused on delivering missile strikes against enemy coastal targets and supporting ground forces in conditions of complete superiority of the US Navy. With the advent of the latest Yasen-M type submarines and Chinese 095 type submarines, as well as Poseidon-type AUVs in the Russian Federation, the US Navy urgently needed a new attack submarine to counter such an underwater enemy.

Currently, the US Navy is designing and carrying out R&D of systems for a new generation attack submarine of the SSN(X) type. Its commissioning is planned for 2038. And by 2049, the fleet should include (with a construction rate of 2-3 units/year) about 30 such submarines. Experts believe that this will be a ship whose priority task will be to search and destroy enemy submarines and AUVs. Perhaps it will be similar to the Seawolf-class submarines, which were originally developed for anti-submarine warfare.

SSN "Seawolf" on the surface when leaving its base

The new submarine should embody all the latest achievements in the field of underwater shipbuilding. It will have increased speed and diving depth, less noise, and the ability to take on board a larger number of different weapons. At the same time, it must operate successfully in maritime operations conducted in accordance with the Forse Net concept.

No less interesting is the direction of increasing the payload for the new generation of submarines. In 2049, it is planned to introduce the lead submarine into the fleet.with increased payload» – LPS (Large Payload Submarine). It is planned to build 5 such units at intervals of 2-3 years. It is expected that this submarine will be a converted version of the Columbia-class SSBN (similar to the Ohio-class SSBN). Currently, specialists are engaged in preliminary design of the LPS. Such a UAV is considered as a carrier of a significant number of multi-purpose AUVs, UAVs, hydroacoustic detection equipment and electromagnetic sensors installed on the seabed, as well as communications equipment, underwater and surface repeaters. All these means should prevent the enemy from detecting the control submarine, ensure its defense and victory in combat clashes with enemy submarines.

According to the creators, the LPS will serve as a combat information and control center and only engage in direct combat when absolutely necessary. Such tactics of its use should increase security and survivability, making it difficult for enemy anti-submarine forces to detect and destroy LPS.

From all that has been said, the following conclusions can be drawn:

1. The Pentagon continues to actively increase the combat capabilities of the Navy by improving existing ones and creating fundamentally new submarine designs.

2. Multi-purpose submarines will remain the most important component of the fleet due to their main advantages - stealth and a wide range of missions.

3. The new generation submarines will have increased performance characteristics and combat stability due to an increase in payload, including a wide range of missile weapons, torpedoes, mines, AUVs and UAVs, as well as units of combat swimmers.

4. PLAs will be able to be used as control centers for the information and control network of operational connections. They will ensure secrecy, stability and flexibility in controlling fleet forces and will contribute to gaining dominance in the enemy’s near sea zone.

These are the main views of the military-political leadership of the country and the fleet on the prospects for the development of nuclear submarines for the period until 2050.

Comments

[Igor Viktorovich]

I really appreciate comments like “every aircraft carrier has a dagger and that’s it.” Lord, how far such people are from reality and the understanding that the Amers’ fleet is not a single large landing craft and a large cargo ship with patrol boats, the Amers’ fleet is a huge combat power. I would really like Russia to have such a fleet, but unfortunately we have what we have.

[Egoza]

Quote: Igor Viktorovich

I would really like Russia to have such a fleet, but unfortunately we have what we have.

Well, maybe until 2050 we will have the same one.

[Igor Viktorovich]

What? Several strike augs, with full-fledged air wings, and fifty destroyers with modern guided missiles? Did you smoke something?

[Igor Viktorovich]

Before 50, we should have launched a couple of Boreans. Patrol boats and tankers don’t count.. Aircraft carriers, well, let’s just forget about them altogether..

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Quote: Igor Viktorovich

Before 50, we should launch a couple of three Boreans

Well, it's not that bad. Now Boreas are more or less mastered by production, from laying to delivery to the fleet - 7-8 years, so the three that are now being built are guaranteed to be in operation before 2030, especially since one has already been launched. Two more will still not be laid down, but even if we assume that the laying will be postponed for another 2-3 years, they will still be in operation by 2035.

[bayard]

Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk

Now Boreas is more or less mastered by production, from laying to delivery to the fleet - 7-8 years, so the trio that is now being built is guaranteed to be in operation before 2030,

In fact, for several years in a row, each year one Borey-A and one Yasen-M enter service, and even if not every year, but about a year later, one special-purpose submarine each. And some delay in laying down the new Boreys was obviously due to the fact that at that time special-purpose submarines were being laid down, the laying of which had not been officially announced by anyone. In addition to the converted 949 Ave., 4 units have been laid out (and are already being commissioned) on the basis of the Borey project. - two each at the Pacific Fleet and Northern Fleet, as carriers of Poseidons. Two divisions have been formed for them in these fleets. Therefore, I think that the Navy will not be limited to 4 submarines of this type and at least two more such submarines will be laid down.
So every year we put into operation 2-3 new submarines, plus the long-awaited repair queues for submarines pr. 971, 945 and 949 are modernized, and are already returning to service in an updated form. Of course I would like it to be faster, but that’s how it works. It’s good that the issue of modernizing at least two of the four titanium MAPL Project 945 has been resolved.
It would be nice if MAPL Ave. 971, stuck on the slipway in Komsomolsk-on-Amur, was completed and is 70% complete. Otherwise, the slipway is occupied, it was built at the expense of the plant, and the state does not want to pay... And the slipway must be vacated for the construction of surface ships.

So the EAS’s submarine fleet is somehow getting better. But with the surface one it’s a problem. Yes, now it seems that he has no time for money - the entire treasury is for the war.

Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk

Two more still won’t be laid

It seems they said that they will lay it this year. Perhaps both at once. Their bookmarks were postponed for several years. But at the same time, we learned that four Poseidon carriers are being built and will soon begin to enter service. Apparently they had a turn at the vacated slipway and were given way.
If the Borei SSBN series is limited to 12 units. , then soon it will be possible to lay down the SSGN “Borey-K” in the same series as “Borey” and “Borey-A” - 6 pieces each. for each fleet (Northern Fleet and Pacific Fleet). And the entire series can be built in 15-20 years. This is if one SSGN is laid down per year.

[Doccor18]

maybe until 2050 we will have the same one

It won’t, it’s unrealistic, and it’s not needed like that.
A combat fleet is needed, first of all, to gain supremacy at sea. And domination is not at all a whim of admirals or politicians, but a completely forced measure, because otherwise there is no way to guarantee the security of your merchant fleet, your trade, your world dictatorship. The USSR once built a huge fleet, but often without reference to its main strategic objectives, because there was no dominance at sea before 1991 (and they didn’t really strive for it), and maritime trade for a continental power was not so critical , as for Britain or the USA...

[Amateur]

Yes, he is not needed like that.

You, like me, were given minuses for the “seditious idea” of the uselessness of such a fleet. I would like to remind the “minus” gentlemen of the “wise thought” of W. Churchill: “If you want to ruin a country, give it a cruiser.”

[Doccor18]

Like me, I was given downvotes for the “seditious idea” of the uselessness of such a fleet.

You don’t need to put a lot of downsides, but define and defend your point of view...

W. Churchill: “If you want to ruin a country, give it a cruiser.”

The First Sea Lord expressed himself quite clearly for countries that need this cruiser as a “toy” to increase their own importance. The British themselves always had a lot of these cruisers, but they had a real task. For coastal defense and flag display, a huge fleet is a “suitcase without a handle”...

[Amateur]

The British themselves always had a lot of these cruisers, but they had a real task

As long as Great Britain had colonies, there were cruisers to provide colonial administration. When the colonies ran out, the fleet and the money to maintain it ran out. Russia has no colonies. This means that it does not need a “colonial” fleet.

[Boa kaa]

Quote: Amateur

Russia has no colonies. This means that it does not need a “colonial” fleet.

You are right about the colonies. But there are friendly countries overseas (Cuba, Venezuela, Nicaragua, etc.) Therefore, not for the sake of showing off, but for business (just in case ) Russia needs a modern, ocean-going fleet BALANCED in strength. Who will force himself to be respected and his enemies will be afraid of him.

[Amateur]

Who will force himself to be respected and his enemies will be afraid of him.

The country's armed forces (army, navy, air force, etc.), as well as the country's leadership, which can use and use their armed forces competently, should be feared and respected.

[Doctor]

. You are right about the colonies. But there are friendly countries overseas (Cuba, Venezuela, Nicaragua, etc.) Therefore, not for the sake of showing off, but for business (just in case laughing) Russia needs a modern, ocean-going fleet BALANCED in strength. Who will force himself to be respected and his enemies will be afraid of him.

What do you, professionals, understand by balance? 30 types of ships, all kinds, like in Gorshkov’s time?
Why then do the Americans strive for unification and introduce the same Tikanderogs, while doing a good job with their tasks.

[Boa kaa]

Quote: Arzt

What do you, professionals, understand by balance? 30 types of ships,

Kuznetsov’s idea of ​​creating a balanced fleet continues to live in the current shipbuilding program until 2050. balanced by types of forces and classes of ships of the fleet, this allows the Navy, as a branch of the RF Armed Forces, to be self-sufficient in solving the tasks assigned to it. This means that there are sufficient quantities for this: aircraft-carrying ships, including AVMA; rocket and artillery, incl. TARKs and missile frigates/destroyers DMZ; anti-submarine - frigates/corvettes; mine sweeping, landing, special purpose. The submarine has a submarine-launched missile system, SSGNs, multi-purpose missile launch missile systems, AUVs, etc. The MA has a ship-based and PA system, both single- and group-based, including IA, SHA, AV PLO, UAV, etc.
You can argue about the quantity (but based on mathematical calculations, and not on the bulging eye of the court bureaucrat and his 3-P! To make it acceptable - unification by mince, by engines, by body elements, etc.

[Aleks88]

// unification by stuffing, by engines, by body elements, etc. //
Can you be more specific? When did this happen to us? Even ships of the same project were different. Let’s say 1164, all 3 are different, even according to the Civil Code. 1143, all different (were), BOD 1155 are different. We've built RTOs, and now we can't even count how many projects there are. Korets and 20380 and 20385/6. Frigates 22350 with different engines plus sub-frigates 11356. Invented a bicycle from a patrol ship.
P.S.: Russia has never had a serious fleet. Only by the number of pennants. At the same time, they built not cheap, but useless 1123, 956. The only worthy 1144 was driven out.

[Boa kaa]

Quote: Aleks88

When did this happen to us?

Reactors on boats. OK-650 and others..."parts and units" of PLA.
sub-frigates 11356. in fact, they were made for Indians according to their wishes. And when they balked, they had to send 1135.6R to the Black Sea Fleet. Well, don't let the goodness go to waste. The Hindus came to their senses after “dancing” with the imperialists and crawled to us again. Now they are building 2 more buildings, which will be carried by BrahMoses.
Invented a bicycle from a patrol ship.
If you are talking about 22160, then the idea is good, but there was not enough load (money/intelligence/will and perseverance/corruption component) to implement the modules - emphasize what is necessary! This is exactly the same as with NAPL pr.677A/D. (The Navy Civil Code and their favorites changed too often!)
not cheap, but useless 1123, 956 were built. 123 - stage of development of aircraft-carrying ships. The project is an imitation of the French with their “J. D* Arc”. After 123, TAKR pr.1143.1,2,4 appeared, but the five died at the outfitting wall in Nikolaev.
The 956 project was a response to the Em type Kid. and he surpassed him in all respects.
So, it's not that simple. Much depends on the circumstances and possibilities of promotions.

[Aleks88]

11356 turned out this way due to the fact that there was no decent air defense. We are completing 2 hulls because there is no engine, so we sold them for nothing, or they would simply rot.
Rotted in Nikolaev 1144 Lazarev. 1143.5 is our Kuzya, 1143.6 is Varyag, now Liaoyin, only a thoroughly modernized project, the total tonnage was increased to 55 kilotons, they installed 3 AFAR arrays and a BIUS similar to the Aegis.
956, but what’s good about it, Mosquitoes with a range of 120 km and a beam Hurricane? Minus PLO

[bayard]

Quote: Aleks88

11356 turned out this way due to the fact that there was no decent air defense.

"Poliment-Redut" was being finished, and the Indians started dancing. As a result, the slipways in Kaliningrad were freed and they were loaded with order 11356 for the Black Sea Fleet, slightly modifying the export frigate. We would have time to complete all 6 units. , would be quite decent escort frigates. And during the middle repair they could get a good modernization.

Quote: Aleks88

. We are completing 2 buildings because there is no engine, so we sold them for free

Not for free, but at a price higher than what the lead frigate "Gorshkov" pr. 22350 cost the treasury. Every . So they definitely didn't sell it short. For the cost of two such “under-frigates” it is now possible to build three 22350 frigates. And one more building remained in the sump, maybe over time they will figure out what to adapt it for. Maybe they will make a training ship out of it.

Quote: Aleks88

Rotted in Nikolaev 1144 Lazarev

"Lazarev" definitely rotted in Nikolaev?
And did it rot? Or was there simply nowhere to modernize it? Moreover, it is long, difficult and expensive. Therefore, 5 billion rubles were allocated. for disposal. Although it was possible to make a museum, a themed hotel with restaurants and other commercial fun. The ship is huge, beautiful, and not rotten.

Quote: Aleks88

total tonnage increased to 55

Kuznetsov has a total VI of 56 tons.

Quote: Aleks88

956, but what’s good about it, Mosquitoes with a range of 120 km and a beam Hurricane? Minus PLO

"Sarychi" were built as escort artillery destroyers. The main task was to escort the landing forces and support the landing with naval artillery. Well, service in the DMZ in tandem with Project 1155, which had no anti-ship weapons at all.

Quote: Aleks88

Mosquitoes with a range of 120 km

The Mosquito has a range of 11 km at an altitude of 000 m. with a mixed profile. 300 km. - this is when the entire flight is at low altitude with a transition to PMV.

Quote: Aleks88

and beam Hurricane?

For the Sarychs, a modernization option was invented during mid-repair, according to which, instead of the aft main gun turret, 4 UKSK for 32 cells of the Granat missile launcher are installed, instead of 2 x 4 Moskit launchers, 2 x 6 inclined Oniks launchers, instead of a beam air defense system a new "Shtil" in the UVP, a new radar complex and a capital hangar for a helicopter instead of a sliding one (as the Chinese did with their four "Sarychs". It would be a good modernization.
At the same time, a program for modernizing the BOD fleet of Project 1155 was developed. Also in the middle of a renovation. Instead of 2 x 4 PLUR "Rass" 2 x 6 inclined launchers "Onyx", instead of the second gun turret there are several UKSK (there were several options, but no less than 4 UKSK), instead of "Dagger" launchers on the waist of the Shtil air defense missile system. PLUR "Waterfall" and the new radar. And on the new ships under construction, Project 1155, they planned to have on the tank 8 UKSK for 64 cells, a Vodopad anti-missile missile, a Shtil air defense missile system and 2 x 6 inclined launchers for the Onyx. This option would have been seriously superior in striking power (and even now ) of any "Burke" and even "Tikanderog", but was still inferior in quality to the ship's air defense system. But this modification should have been built already in the 90s and the modernization of all previously built BOD 1155.
So in the USSR by 2000, we would have 10 aircraft carriers (4 of them nuclear-powered), a bunch of destroyers of two projects, 4 nuclear-powered cruisers of Project 1144 and 10 gas turbines of Project 1164. And I’ll simply break through submarines of all types with a total number of approximately 1,5 times more than the United States + diesel-electric submarines.
This is the kind of Fleet that was built in the USSR. But it was not completed for known reasons.

[Aleks88]

You know, the USSR also planned a bunch of battleships and cruisers, but it’s unclear what kind of big ones. Plus the industry would not have been able to handle it.
Lazarev rotted, they wanted to buy him from Ukraine, but after examining him they did not buy him. The modernization of Nakhimov cost 200+ billion rubles. 5 frigates 22350.
Poliment-Redut was 9 years late, and where did you get the information that they sold so dearly? Moreover, Indians count money, and the USSR/Russia never built decent ships.
The modernization of 956 and 1155 was only “planned”, since we are always trying to cram in something that can’t be squeezed in.
How can we build more than 100 nuclear submarines if we built 1 in 4 years, and 885 in 12 years? And then, with a backlog of entire sections. And the states launch 2 boats a year.
Kuznetsov is not there and it is not known when he will be. Moreover, there is no air group.
Average renovation is 1164 Moscow. 1155 is being seriously modernized, they are embedding UVPU 3S-14, installing strike weapons in inclined launchers, but they will never reach Burke with his 96 MK-41 cells and Aegis with AN/SPY radar, especially in conjunction with Nimtz and 70 nuclear submarines
P.S.: Don’t forget about the allies, Europe, Japan, South Korea. Each of the surface fleets is stronger than the Russian one. And submarines may not leave their bases. So the hope is only for the strategic nuclear forces, not for the fleet. Moreover, this is the most expensive pleasure.

[bayard]

Quote: Aleks88

You know, the USSR also planned a bunch of battleships and cruisers, but it’s unclear what kind of big ones.

The USSR was then preparing for war with England and its ally France, so the Fleet was needed. But money was not a problem for the Stalinist Economy, the problem was trained and highly qualified personnel. But there was no time to build that fleet before WWII.
They began building the Fleet according to a new program (according to a new program) after WWII, and long-term plans were drawn up. Kuznetsov (and not only) impressed by the US war with Japan in the Pacific Ocean insisted on building aircraft carriers “like the Americans.” Stalin convened a large meeting on this topic. The shipbuilders waved their hands - the industry is not ready, has not recovered after the war, many qualified personnel have been lost (killed). It takes time to restore the industry and get going. Stalin agreed - “Okay, we’ll build for now what industry is capable of at the moment” and decided to order a large batch of 25 ocean-class light cruisers. In addition to the fact that in this series the Industry was supposed to accumulate competencies, these ships were supposed to become a good school for training our sailors and future naval commanders, gain experience in service in far sea and ocean zones, and experience in operating large ships. Next, a project for a battle cruiser with 305 mm guns was ordered. and a powerful power plant with four steam turbines with a capacity of 280 l/s. (for comparison, look at the Iowa power plant). Stalin personally supervised the design of this battle cruiser and himself made proposals and changes to the project.
Why did he need battle cruisers?
But this is a very interesting question.
Firstly, a new power plant of such power should have appeared and been tested on these cruisers. Secondly, the hull itself, mine protection, reservation and control systems, and general ship systems. This was necessary for new aircraft carriers, the VI of which was supposed to be about 70 - 000 tons. And such an aircraft carrier was also being designed then. Steam catapults were designed (not all American ones had them at that time - they were just beginning to be installed to launch jet aircraft), and aircraft were also developed for the future aircraft carrier. A project was developed for a very interesting attack aircraft with a coaxial propeller and an engine behind the cockpit (like the Airacobra...
And for the battlecruiser itself, unique main guns with a barrel length of 62 calibers (!) and a firing range of up to 60 km were developed.
What for ?
And then, that guided missiles, much less anti-ship weapons, did not exist then. Especially ship-based ones. But here is a nuclear weapon in 305 mm caliber. our scientists have already created.
Do you understand? Twisting range and nuclear projectile. And an unusually high speed for a ship of such a VI - 35 knots. Those. he could, having an advantage in speed, keep the enemy at a distance of his own effective fire, and at the same time remain out of the reach of his shells... having nuclear shells.
In addition, these aircraft were supposed to be accompanied by new aircraft carriers, which were almost the size of the Nimitz, only back in the 50s.
Khrushchev cut up these unfinished cruisers, and part of one of their hulls was used to test their anti-torpedo protection. Anti-torpedo protection proved to be very effective.

This is how Stalin planned the development of our Fleet. Khrushchev stopped all projects, some new and unfinished cruisers were cut into metal... Only destroyers were left in production. After this, a normal surface fleet began to be built only in the early 70s. And before that, they were building a submarine fleet. Incl. PLA.
And we baked PLA like hot cakes, first at three and then at four CVDs.
Now we are building 2-2,5 submarines per year on one, but even so we are ahead of the United States, which barely produces 1,5 submarines per year.

[bayard]

Quote: Aleks88

. The modernization of Nakhimov cost 200+ billion rubles. 5 frigates 22350.

The cost of modernization really turned out to be high, but the modernization project itself changed several times - it became more complicated in order to accommodate new types of weapons and avionics. And it looks like it will be not just a very powerful, but also a very advanced ship. Almost a new ship in an old but very durable hull with a service life of 40 years after modernization. This amount is given only to new ships.
And in our case, money cannot always be converted into new ships. While the Nakhimov modernization was underway, the unfinished frigates of Project 22350 were simply waiting for their power plants. So, having saved money on Nakhimov, we would not have received a single new ship. But during this time, during the modernization, they received a ship of unprecedented power. And this year it will go on sea trials. And "Kuznetsov" too.

Quote: Aleks88

Where did you get the information that they sold for so much?

They talked about it on TV, wrote on the Internet and made reports. The amounts were announced by officials immediately after signing the contract and repeated many times later. So we definitely didn't sell ourselves short.

Quote: Aleks88

Indians count money

They bargain, get too carried away in this process, try to outwit and therefore very often buy much more expensive than they could.
In addition, there is an export duty on military exports, which usually doubles the cost of the product compared to the price for its military unit. And this is fair - the cost of development was paid by the state and for the Moscow Region it is not included in the cost of the product.
And the manufacturer is given the opportunity to lay down a normal rate of profit, and not the symbolic one that the Moscow Region allows.

Quote: Aleks88

The USSR/Russia never built decent ships.

Not true . I remember very well how in the mid-to-late 80s, analytical articles were published in the USA about “why Soviet ships are so beautiful and cause such delight not only among the peoples of the world, but even among American citizens.” And making a thorough analysis, we drew significant conclusions. So, firstly, our ships are MUCH more beautiful than snags like the Ticanderoga or the same Burke.
Secondly, it was the USSR that was the first to switch to gas turbines as part of power plants, while the Amers were using steam ones.
Thirdly, they were always openly jealous of our heavy supersonic anti-ship missiles. Moreover, before they had AJIS, they were simply defenseless against them. And we fell behind in shipborne air defense systems only with the advent of AJIS. But we simply didn’t have large enough ships to accommodate four phased array panels... they only installed this on aircraft carriers, and even then to test a similar AJIS system... But we simply didn’t have time. In avionics, we were really 5-7 years behind. In addition, for a long time we mainly built anti-submarine cruisers (ASCs) and the composition of their weapons was specific.

Quote: Aleks88

The modernization of 956 and 1155 was only “planned”, since we are always trying to cram in something that can’t be squeezed in.

It’s just that at the time of development and construction of these ships we did not have compact missiles and air launch vehicles for them. Our "Granat" appeared not much later than the "Tomahawk", then it was launched through the TA of submarines and from inclined TPUs. UKSK were being developed, but they were supposed to appear on ships only in the early 90s. And "Onyx" was originally going to launch their inclined launchers as well. So everything is fine - missiles would have appeared on ships a little later, but they would have been superior in quality. The new 1155 was supposed to have 64 UVP for "Grenade", 12 PU for "Onyx" + PLUR "Waterfall". And also the Shtil missile defense system in the UVP. So in terms of impact potential it was greater than even that of the Tikanderoga, not to mention the early Burks.

Quote: Aleks88

How can we build nuclear submarines of more than 100 units if we built 1 year in 4

Hurry up. They built it faster, open Wikipedia. And they built it not on one shipyard, but on four.

Quote: Aleks88

Kuznetsov is not there and it is not known when he will be.

He's already ready. This year on the go.

Quote: Aleks88

Average renovation is 1164 Moscow.

No . Medium repairs are usually combined with modernization and the ship’s life is extended. And "Moscow" did not even receive normal restoration repairs. Its short-range air defense did not work, and in general it could not be released into service in this form.

Quote: Aleks88

Average renovation is 1164 Moscow. 1155 is being seriously modernized, they are embedding UVPU 3S-14, installing strike weapons in inclined launchers, but they will never reach Burke with his 96 MK-41 cells and Aegis with AN/SPY radar, especially in conjunction with Nimtz and 70 nuclear submarines

That's bullshit ? 1155 after modernization is a frigate!

The Burks have 96 cells along with the missile defense system. "Nakhimov" has 200 missiles only in the UKSK and the Frt-M air defense missile launchers, plus a bunch of anti-ship missiles and 32-40 missiles in each of the six modules of the "Pantsir-M" air defense system with a range of up to 40 km.. And no one today is talking about parity does not speak . There was parity during the period under discussion.
As for the fleets of Europe or Japan and South Korea, for example, the Pacific Fleet forces will only need to shoot a couple of our old SSGNs and 4-5 SLBMs on the islands and peninsula from Kamchatka. And this could not be considered as a threat factor. But in the current conditions there will be 1-2 “Poseidons” for Japan - just to be sure.

Quote: Aleks88

. And submarines may not leave their bases. So the only hope is for strategic nuclear forces,

Or they can shoot back from the pier if a combat crew is constantly on duty on board in readiness.
In addition, the SSBN is one of the components of our strategic nuclear forces.
But now no one is talking about any “decisive” or even “significant” role of the surface fleet. The ineffective managers never built a surface fleet. Like many other things. Now some kind of “cleansing” has begun.

[Aleks88]

You are an amazing optimist))) Most likely, in the event of a serious conflict, the base in Kamchatka will be destroyed. And no one will come out from there. There were just photos from satellites showing nuclear submarines standing in neat rows at the piers. On the database, at best, Boreas are 1-2.
Today we argued with Andrey about anti-ship missiles; in the 70-80s there were Long Beaches with nuclear Tailes. Plus the F-14 with Phoenix, which during the exercises shot down 5 out of 6 targets that imitated the X-22.
Israel at one time fought well against the P-15 Termit, not a single one of the 48 missiles hit, after it once sank the Eilat destroyer of 46, built in England.
I once studied Granit P-700
In terms of the element base, we are at the level of 2003-2006, plus imported equipment that no one will sell. We can produce conditional Nokia 3310

[bayard]

Quote: Aleks88

You are an amazing optimist

And there is .

Quote: Aleks88

Most likely, in the event of a serious conflict, the base in Kamchatka will be destroyed. And no one will come out from there.

It depends on a lot. From the one who first takes on the role of Forester and owner of the hut, for example. And we are the Forester. And my grandfather was a Forester... of a protected forest. And a beekeeper.

Quote: Aleks88

Photos from satellites showing nuclear submarines standing in neat rows at the piers. On the database, at best, Boreas are 1-2.

Everyone will come out when alerted. Those who can't do it will shoot back from the pier.

Quote: Aleks88

in the 70-80s there were Long Beaches with nuclear Tiles.

Why were they written off ahead of schedule?
Did it come out crooked?

Quote: Aleks88

Plus the F-14 with Phoenix, which during the exercises shot down 5 out of 6 targets that imitated the X-22.

"Tom-Cat" is of course a good device, although it received normal engines at the end of its career. But five out of six X-22s?? Where did they get them from? Simulator? How accurately did the imitator imitate? So they took an old X-22, its warhead was a little lighter (one and a half times), raised the echelon higher, where the missile defense systems felt extremely insecure, added fuel, and - voila. X-32 is unbreakable, incredible, a thunderstorm and the horror of any AJIS. And it was not difficult, and the solution was on the surface, and in the 90s they would have done it... but it happened only in the early 20s of the 21st century.

Quote: Aleks88

Israel once fought very well against the P-15 Termit

Why fight her as an old woman?

Quote: Aleks88

I once studied Granit P-700
by element base

What's wrong with the base? “Belomor pack” instead of “box of matches”? So the rocket is heavy, there is enough space for everything. And that was enough. Why all this race for nanometers? If only morons need them to play with computer toys. Weapons require high-quality combat algorithms and software.

Quote: Aleks88

imported equipment that no one will sell.

We do it ourselves.
And they saved it for use.

Quote: Aleks88

We can produce conditional Nokia 3310

Sorry .
And we can create a quantum computer.

[Doccor18]

Boa kaa
The 956 project was a response to the Em type Kid. and he surpassed him in all respects

Maybe it’s still an answer to Spruence...
And Kidd was just a private project for the Navy of the Shah of Iran.
As for “superior in all respects,” there are nuances, because in terms of artillery and the anti-ship missile complex it was certainly superior, but in terms of PLO capabilities it was definitely inferior, incl. and for the air group... That is why it was necessary to simultaneously invent the BOD 1155 and theoretically justify “paired combat coexistence”...

[Boa kaa]

Quote: Doccor18

Maybe it’s still an answer to Spruence...
And Kidd was just a private project for the Navy of the Shah of Iran.

No, exactly Em Kidd. And the art systems were about the same. Intelligence misinformed the leadership that the Ams would have a large series. In addition, we were still delirious about carrying out VMDO on enemy shores. And for OKOP it was difficult to think of a better 130 mm double-barreled shotgun, and twice (bow and stern). And as a KNS, Sarych was irresistible with his 3M80ME. Then they even took up the 82nd. For its time, Sunburn was a compelling RCC. They were able to shoot it down only in 14, and then by SM-6.

[Doccor18]

In addition, we were still delirious about carrying out VMDO on enemy shores

They were just "delusional"...
Where we were going to land thousands of Marines under 130mm cover. rapid fire, and with a significant superiority of the enemy at sea, it is still not entirely clear...

For its time, Sunburn was a compelling RCC.

Of course, Mosquito is a masterpiece of technical thought of that time. In terms of anti-ship missiles, we were fifteen years ahead of the Americans...

[bayard]

Quote: Doccor18

Where we were going to land thousands of Marines under 130mm cover. rapid fire, and with a significant superiority of the enemy at sea, it is still not entirely clear...

Well, for example in Norway. In South Korea, Japan and Gama... Are they not candidates for landing operations? It was still too early for us to be on the beaches of Philadelphia then. Yes, and our BDKs usually had a short range, the “Bisons” were the same with the “Eaglets” - they took the straits. And how can they do without artillery support? This is why they kept the old cruisers and built the Buzzards. And for a multifunctional ship at that time it was not yet possible to cram everything into one hull - after all, most of our stocks were 170 m long and had a launch weight of up to 10 tons.
For landing operations in DM and OZ, UDC helicopter carriers with a dock for landing boats were needed. They were only planned to be built in Kerch in the early 90s. The project was prepared, but there was no place to build, we waited until the stocks in Kerch were freed. Because aircraft carriers were built on the only suitable slipway.

Quote: Doccor18

In terms of anti-ship missiles, we were fifteen years ahead of the Americans...

Yes, perhaps more. Much of what we had available then, in development and testing, they still cannot repeat to this day. But it’s understandable - they have a huge fleet, the basis of sea power is aircraft carriers, and the main striking force is aviation. And having seen such a terrible threat as our heavy supersonic anti-ship missiles, they created their own AJIS and quite good missile defense systems...
Only back then (at the turn of the 80s - 90s) we already had both Onyx and hypersonic missiles in development, incl. and anti-ship. The same "Zircon" could have appeared before the end of the 90s.
The eternal struggle of sword and shield. No one stood still.

[bayard]

Quote: Boa constrictor KAA

Russia needs a modern, ocean-going fleet BALANCED in strength. Who will force himself to be respected and his enemies will be afraid of him.

Building an Ocean Fleet for the sake of politics, but without an economic base, is a gamble and ruin. But we are currently building and will continue to build the Great Ocean Merchant Fleet. For this purpose, new shipbuilding plants in the Far East and in the North are being founded, and are planning to be founded. Our exporters need too many large ocean-class vessels. They have invaded international trade too much. And for the safety of navigation of such a large Merchant Fleet, we need a strong Navy capable of ensuring a constant presence in key points of the World Ocean, so that neither pirates nor enemy fleets interfere with our trade.
China is also building its own Fleet for the security of its trade. Not for ambition.
And by conducting extensive maritime trade, a large Navy can only be maintained through export and maritime taxes on such trade. Or rather, even for part of such a tax.

Quote: Boa constrictor KAA

Cuba, Venezuela, Nicaragua, etc.

They will be able to provide our Fleet with bases. Then you can return to Cam Ranh. By the way, the Vietnamese are not against our return.. And from Cam Ranh it’s simply great to control the Malacca Straits. And not only by ships, but also by patrol aircraft. And it is possible to base nuclear submarines there and provide logistics support there.
By the way, about the fact that the Vietnamese have now decided to play cupids with the USA... these are not cupids. This is because of a hopeless situation. They fought with China, they don’t want to be taken over by China, but they alone are not willing to do so. So they drag them with a tie to AUCUS. If we return, all doubts and worries will end. We have a strategic partnership (but not an alliance) with China, which means that now China will not touch the Vietnamese, and AUCUS did not fall in vain. It’s good for China too - Vietnam will not be an ally of the United States and will not become its base. It will be good for everyone if we return... But there is nothing to return with yet - there are no surface ships for such services. And it’s not so good with patrol aircraft.
China could have a series of frigates with hulls (power plant, general navigation, general ship systems) for our combat equipment. Moreover, the entire series is specifically for the Pacific Fleet. Then things would have moved forward. And the Mallaka Straits would be under direct control. If we returned Cam Ranh as a full-fledged naval base, with the deployment there of our air defense, ballistic missile systems, patrol/anti-submarine and attack/fighter aircraft... The entire region would become calmer. Trade is safer, and Malaysia and the Philippines would not need an alliance with the United States. And our tourists would be drawn to the amazing and endless beaches of Vietnam.

[Boa kaa]

You wrote everything correctly. One note: the Navy has a list of tasks assigned to it by the military-political leadership of the country. They are defined both in the Maritime Doctrine and in the shipbuilding program of the Russian Federation for the period until 2030. Agree, APRC SN and SSGN are not particularly suitable “for the safety of navigation of such a large Merchant Fleet” and protecting it from pirates. But protecting the interests of the Russian Federation will be just that. What I mean is that it is not always correct to follow the views of K/a Mahan regarding the “merchant fleet”, which needs a strong navy. The second task of our Navy, after the destruction of important coastal facilities, is the destruction of enemy SSBNs... It is also not related to the theory of the American rear admiral of the early 20th century...
As for the rest, I agree with you. But the fleet should still be BALANCED. I am against the views of Mr. Khramchishin, who believes that we do not need AVMA. Asymmetrical fleet construction has never led to any good, even for the Kriegsmarine, which opted for unlimited submarine warfare. He apparently intended to repeat the story of Doenitz and his wolf packs. And this is a grave mistake. Without air cover, boats are vulnerable and their combat stability is sharply reduced.
Yes, we need a thriving economy to have a strong navy. Because it's very expensive. We need a basing system in the World Ocean. This is what we are working on.
Best regards,

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Quote: Doccor18

You don’t need to put a lot of downsides, but define and defend your point of view...

Yes, because repeating myself for the hundredth time gets a little boring :)))

Quote: Doccor18

The USSR once built a huge fleet, but often without reference to its main strategic objectives

How would you like to understand this? The USSR Navy was created within the framework of a global concept, according to which it was supposed to
1) Counter-counter nuclear missile, which implied the need for SSBNs and ensuring their operation
2) Identification and destruction of SSBNs in the seas adjacent and close to the territory of the USSR in order to push back the launch boundaries of SLBMs
3) Ensuring the actions of the ground army (the same 5 OPESK is the neutralization of the 6th fleet, and not only SSBNs, but also others, which contributed to the defeat of Turkey and the capture of the Straits)
4) Covering the territory of the USSR from attacks by naval carrier-based aircraft and cruise missiles (MRA, SSGN, RKR, etc.)
5) Complications in the delivery of US military forces to Europe along Atlantic routes, which was of utmost importance from the point of view of the land war in Europe as a whole. This is why the breakthrough into the Atlantic by PLAT forces
In other words, the tasks of the fleet were completely linked to the concept of the general use of the armed forces in the event of a global war

[Alexey RA]

Clause 5 is an integral part of clause 3.
For the disruption of the transportation of personnel and equipment of the “continental” divisions and corps of the US Army to Europe, as well as the disruption of logistics transportation in the same direction, was carried out precisely in order to ensure the actions of the ground army.
And the cutting on transatlantic communications was supposed to be very heavy - since the USN was ready to use even the AUG to cover transportation.

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Quote: Alexey RA

Clause 5 is an integral part of clause 3

Yes, sir!

[Aleks88]

Yes, in the best times there were 20+ pennants in the Mediterranean, but that’s a drop in the ocean. From the continent they would simply be shot. We have never had decent naval air defense. And often nothing at all, except for MANPADS. And the Yak-38, a pocket plane with a radius of 200 km.

[bayard]

Quote: Aleks88

Yes, in the best times there were 20+ pennants in the Mediterranean, but that’s a drop in the ocean. From the continent they would simply be shot.

Actually, in the Mediterranean Sea (and not only) our ships carried out “weapon tracking” of the ships of the US 6th Fleet and other NATO ships. At the “green whistle” they were supposed to shoot at enemy ships and... die heroically. Most ships had enough ammunition for 20 minutes of battle. And that's it. But during this time they had to complete a combat mission. Our artillery cruisers (very fast) chased the AUG, always remaining within range of an artillery salvo. And at the “whistle”, bombard the AB 6" with shells. Of course, you won’t be able to sink it, but you can certainly take out the flight deck, aircraft lifts, superstructure, and, well, pick apart its hull to the maximum. After this, the AB is already disabled as a combat unit. In a similar way, they monitored with weapons and our other ships.
And no “round eyes” about the fact that “suicide bombers were being prepared.” Our Army, Navy and State were preparing for a global nuclear war. . And while our 5th operational squadron would perish, destroying the US 6th Fleet, megaton-class nuclear charges would explode in the United States and Europe, Japan and South Korea, at all US military bases around the world. And our Western Group of Forces, smashing NATO barriers, would clear Europe of fascist capitalists and reach the English Channel.
The USSR began building the Ocean Fleet only in the early 70s. Just started! And the Fleet, as you know, “Takes a long time to build” (English folk wisdom).
By the end of the 80s, we reached full parity and gained an advantage in the Submarine Fleet over the United States. And the size of our achieved advantage covered the rest of NATO. We had 1,5 times more submarines in service. At the same time, we had a class of submarines, which the United States and NATO did not have - SSGNs! And it was SSGNs that were our main striking missile force in the world's oceans. Not aircraft carriers, like the United States, but numerous submarines with heavy supersonic missiles on board. And at the same time, in a complex design. They reinforced our naval groups from under water in any seas and oceans, and knowing this, the United States tried not to provoke our surface ships. Knowing that the main argument of the KUG can strike from under the water at any moment.
In terms of the number of SLBMs on SSBNs, we had 950 SLBMs of different classes. And the USA has “only” 600 pieces. With approximate parity in the number of MAPLs.
We would have achieved parity in surface forces by 2000, when we would have 10 aircraft carriers in service, of which 4 nuclear-powered, two a la Kuznetsov and 4 modernized Krechet aircraft with supersonic VTOL aircraft Yak-41 and Yak-201 on on board. Moreover, supersonic VTOL aircraft would be based on new UDC helicopter carriers and on a certain number of so-called “mobilization aircraft carriers” equipped with tankers and dry cargo ships with a flight deck (such tests and training continued throughout the 80s). we would have had complete parity in the main classes. Most likely in the 90s we would have already had our own “IGIS”.
It was physically impossible to achieve such parity faster. But over the past 15 years, in terms of the tonnage of ships annually delivered to the Navy, we and the United States have been neck and neck. . It’s just that at that time they had in their arsenal many ships of military and post-war construction. Even WWII aircraft carriers and modernized battleships. But in the 90s, all this junk would have already been written off and we would have been left with what we built over the last 20-25 years. This was the arms race and we did not lose in it.

[Aleks88]

With your lips and drink honey. P-700 Granite is highly overrated. Its seeker “detected” the ship with approximately 300 m2 of EPR, at a distance of 40 km. In the vigorous version there were 2-3 missiles out of 24 on the 949A, plus almost all 3M10 Garnets. Not everyone in the 5th squadron had a 30 knot speed. And obviously not the Premier League. The Yak-41 was abandoned after a couple of accidents during testing, they also did not receive the Yak AWACS, it was not even built in one copy, only a mock-up.
Are you sure that the USSR would have built 10 aircraft carriers, and how to get out of the Black Sea with nuclear power plants?
The squadron was intended for the SSBNs to release their birds. We prepared Operation Behemoth for 2 years and only fired all the missiles the second time. We have almost caught up with NAVY in terms of tonnage, but mainly due to the “mosquito” fleet. America has had F-14s for decades of practice, but we have conscripts and no experience in naval combat. 68 bis wouldn't achieve anything. It was considered possible to destroy the AUG only for the Tu-22 regiment with a probability of about 6% (approximately the same numbers were on the internet), my teacher capraz was very critical of the fleet’s capabilities. At the same time, all cruisers were distributed among the fleets. The USA completely controlled the country, and could approach the borders with Polaris or later with the Tridents unnoticed. Flight time is reduced significantly. They might not have time to answer.
What we have now is that we have 3.5 40-year-old cruisers and a couple of frigates. 4th Borey and a couple of MAPLs. The rest are 35 years old. That's about right. The capabilities of the fleet are shown by the Black Sea Fleet.

[bayard]

Quote: Aleks88

P-700 Granite is highly overrated. Its seeker "detected" the ship with approximately 300 m2 of EPR, at a distance of 40 km.

So what, such opportunities existed then. But they could move with a deployed front/bearing and row like a comb, exchanging data. There were other tactics as well.

Quote: Aleks88

In the vigorous version there were 2-3 missiles out of 24 on the 949A, plus almost all 3M10 Garnets.

This is in peacetime. What if there was a pre-war period? Is it a big problem to change the composition of the missiles or the warheads for them? And if the first missiles are eaten by the air defense of ships and fighters, then let them eat ordinary ones. And don’t forget that the AUG should not be attacked by “one SSGN”, or “one regiment on the Tu-22M\M3”, or “only one surface KUG”, or “only one MAPL”. They would attack everyone who is supposed to or at once everyone who at the moment they could. If the SSGN lays the “Path” to the AUG, then the regiment will no longer have to suffer losses and all X-22s will hit the targets. In this case, the regiment will simply return to reload, and the probability of its success will be at least 70 - 90%.
You pick out different periods of history and arrange them as you wish. I repeat - by the end of the 80s, the USSR had already achieved parity with the USA and NITO in the submarine fleet (with our numerical superiority). And parity in the surface fleet should be achieved by 2000. Moreover, not in each component separately, but in aggregate. The lack of our surface forces was compensated by the presence of numerous and very effective MRAs and the presence of such a class of submarines as SSGNs. . And our formidable and inevitable Strategic Missile Forces loomed over all this. . Any process must be considered in dynamics. We were then catching up with the United States, having begun building the Ocean Fleet only in the early 70s. Do you think it is possible to build a surface fleet equal to the then US fleet in less than 20 years? So China is now trying, but does not have time. So there is no need to wring your hands, they climb to a greater height along the stairs... up the steps... step by step. We sometimes jumped over steps, but the old English wisdom says: “It takes a long time to build a fleet.” And the mistakes made with such a rapid increase in the size of the Fleet are not surprising - we did not have the consistently accumulated experience for this, we did not wage a war in the Pacific Ocean, we, jumping over steps, quickly caught up with the leader.

Quote: Aleks88

The Yak-41 was abandoned after a couple of accidents during testing

Yeltsin abandoned the Yak-41. After an unsuccessful landing of the Yak-41 on a new type of lattice deck with gas outlets. And before that, the Yak-41 set a couple of dozen world records and was the long-awaited technical and actual breakthrough as a supersonic SSVP as a full-fledged combat fighter.
The Yak-44 was supposed to be part of the nuclear air wing. "Ulyanovsk had enough time - in 1991, Ulyanovsk was only 20% ready. The Yak-44 was going to be built in a series of at least 100 units only for its Air Force and Navy, not speaking about the allies. So, don’t even doubt it, they would have built it on time.

Quote: Aleks88

68 bis wouldn't achieve anything.

Firstly, they would have time to transmit the exact coordinates of the AUG to the MRA and missile ships. Secondly, they could well have managed to seriously damage the deck, elevators, superstructure and internal aircraft systems, making it impossible (at least for a while) for carrier-based aircraft to take off and land. I - welcome MPA of the Country of Soviets.

Quote: Aleks88

Now we have what we have: 3.5 40-year-old cruisers and a couple of frigates

There are more frigates - there are already four new ones in service and the modernization of the entire fleet (7 units) of BOD Project 1155 is ongoing, giving them the status of “frigate” after modernization. But this is all, of course, nonsense compared to the failed shipbuilding program.

Quote: Aleks88

It was considered possible to destroy the AUG only the Tu-22 regiment with a probability of about 6% (approximately these figures were on the internet)

This is if you use an old instrument and old tactics to use a brand new IJIS.
But it was enough to slightly modernize the old X-22 and - voila - a range of 1000 km. altitude 40 km. speed is almost 5M. Oops... and somehow IJISU is no longer comfortable. And if you use the “Trail” tactical technique, then it will be absolutely beautiful.

[Aleks88]

I drew for a long time - demagoguery. We have what we have. According to the roster of the fleet - on paper, one. The reality is much worse. Not a single boat armed with Granites (949A) will now fire a full salvo. The missiles are 40 years old, at best the automation will work, at worst it will explode. Also our 667BDR SSBNs (all decommissioned), which are also 40+ years old, or the “new” Borei 955 (if Sineva is still flying, then the P30 Bulava has an amazing 30% successful launch rate). In the USSR they prepared the Behemoth for 2 years, and they shot it the second time. How many space launches do we have per year? How many take off the first time?
Also 1144 and 2x1164, the missiles are 40 years old. In Moscow there was no main battery with special warheads, otherwise such a storm would have arisen. The last photo I saw was without Vulcans at all.
As a result, we have Onyx, Caliber-NK, Zircon. As a result, we have 4 Boreas from the strategists, and an incomprehensible number of 40 summer missiles with a range of 400 km. I doubt that rank 2/3 ships will be trusted to carry tactical nuclear weapons.
P.S.: It’s kind of sad. Against 16/18 Ohio x 24 Trident D5 who have statistics of 152+ consecutive successful starts. Plus Elks, Virginias, Wolves

[bayard]

Quote: Aleks88

I drew for a long time - demagoguery.

And what does Alexander draw here? And yet again, I don’t mind the heresy of time and keyboards.
At first I thought about "Boreas", well, I was mistaken\I described myself to a human. But no he's LYING.

Quote: Aleks88

4 Boreas

Is this your mantra? Where does this mania for understatement come from? There are 7 Boreevs in service:
- "Yury Dolgoruky" . 31st div. SF.
- "Alexander Nevskiy" . 25th div. Pacific Fleet
- "Vladimir Monomakh". 25th div. Pacific Fleet
- "Prince Vladimir". 31st div. SF.
- "Prince Oleg" 25th div. Pacific Fleet
- "Generalissimo Suvorov". 25th div. Pacific Fleet
- "Alexander-3". 25th div. Pacific Fleet
"Prince Pozharsky" is undergoing mooring tests and will leave for the Northern Fleet this year.
"Dmitry Donskoy" and "Prince Potemkin" are under construction.
Two more, based on an improved design, will be laid down soon.
So you're lying.
You lie and manipulate. But it's stupid.
In the same way, one can say with much greater justification that Trident-2 is a 40-year-old piece of junk and will not fly anywhere. The last launch of this type by the British was enchanting. Just like the previous one.
"Trident-2" is the same age as our "Sineva". But “Blue is liquid and flies beautifully.” The “Liner” flies even better.. All the “Dolphins” are in service, have undergone modernization, and in light of what is happening in the world, I would not delude myself into writing them off.

Quote: Aleks88

.Not a single boat armed with Granites (949A) will now fire a full salvo. rockets are 40 years old

Why are you so worried about the age of the rockets? The United States has older missiles in its arsenal and you don’t wring your hands about this. Our old X-22s work quite well in the Northern Military District. They work well. But perhaps they will be older. And the old X-55s in the Northern Military District worked as baits for the five. So don't worry so much about Granites. They can handle it.

Quote: Aleks88

P30 Bulava has an amazing success rate of 30%)

Lie . You counted all the tests as failures before they were put into service. Yes, and they lied about this. As already many, many times.
For what purpose are we lying?

Quote: Aleks88

an incomprehensible number of 40-year-old missiles with a range of 400 km.

More . The missiles have a longer range. 550 - 650 km.
And why bother with the old things? There are plenty of new anti-ship missiles. Both on ships and on DBK. . There are so many visible that they are regularly/periodically used against ground targets in the air defense system. And I'm not even talking about "Calibers", which are simply consumables of war, like cartridges.

Quote: Aleks88

Against 16/18 Ohio x 24 TridentD5

And again a lie. There are currently 14 Ohio-class SSBNs in service. They are OLDER even than our “Dolphins” - they were built since 1976, while the “Dolphins” were built since 1981. They are the same age as our “Sharks”!! Antiquity is hopeless. Rockets are as old as time. The TT was changed many times. But they are older than our Sineva... not to mention the Liner. Simply - OLD. Therefore, they will not fly normally. Due to age. Some simply won’t take off/fail, some will not work correctly. So, if I were you, I would count on about 50% of Trident-2 as being able to operate normally. But will they all be able to shoot back? After all, in their databases they are read to a satellite like an open book. And if they rush into the sea “all of a sudden,” then all of our people will also go out to sea.
I don’t understand HOW can you get away with PR for such a shabby piece of junk?
B-52...from the 50s of the last century.
"Ohio" from the 70s of the last century.
"Trident-2" - from the 70s of the last century.
"Minuteman 3" from the early 70s - late 60s.
The overwhelming majority of nuclear warheads are over 30 years old and for this reason they not only need to be rebuilt, but also need to be processed at a radiochemical plant... Which does not exist.
How should the United States deliver that First Strike? Their club has rotted. Israel now seems to have no more combat-ready nuclear warheads.

[Doccor18]

How would you like to understand this?

But how to understand, as it is, the tasks were set first one way, then another, the theoretical basis was lame

In 1962, the theoretical work “Military Strategy” was published, edited by the Chief of the General Staff, which argued that the use of the Navy should be limited to actions “mainly on an operational scale”18.

That is, there was no naval doctrine as a unified strategy at sea...

By the mid-1970s, the basic principles of the strategic use of the Navy in peacetime and war were formulated, the main ones being early deployment and permanent presence in strategically important areas of the World Ocean,

Only by the mid-70s... But

As a scientific category, “maritime strategy” has never received official recognition. Moreover, in 1976, on the initiative of the Deputy Chief of the General Staff - Head of the Military Scientific Directorate of the General Staff of the USSR Armed Forces, Colonel General M.A. Gareev's naval science was “abolished.”

And since the mid-80s, OPEC has been hobbled by its defense doctrine...
And all these hesitations in theory could not be reflected in practice. Either we need large NK, or we don’t, because there is a “miracle weapon” in the form of submarines. Either we don’t need medium-caliber naval artillery, then a whole series of destroyers are being designed/built for it... And the monstrous 1144, then they are inventing their place in the application strategy... You can also add a decent variety of types, the absence of universal launchers and much, much more... .

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Quote: Doccor18

That is, there was no naval doctrine as a unified strategy at sea.

Not at all. Conclusion

Quote: Doccor18

Navy use should be limited to actions "primarily on an operational scale"

was done because at that time (1962) the USSR Navy, due to its obvious weakness, could not solve strategic problems. That’s why he was temporarily “tied” to the operational level
In addition, the beginning of the 60s was a time when all old doctrines needed revision due to the emergence of revolutionary new means in the war at sea. Therefore, everything here is consistent and logical.

Quote: Doccor18

By the mid-1970s, the basic principles of the strategic use of the Navy in peacetime and war were formulated, the main ones being early deployment and permanent presence in strategically important areas of the World Ocean,

Which is not at all surprising - to create the doctrine of “oceanic nuclear missile” it was necessary not only to create samples of the latest weapons, but also to “test” them in action, operating them for several years and gaining experience/understanding of what it gives.

Quote: Doccor18

Moreover, in 1976, on the initiative of the Deputy Chief of the General Staff - Head of the Military Scientific Directorate of the General Staff of the USSR Armed Forces, Colonel General M.A. Gareev's naval science was “abolished.”

So keep quoting

The problems she studied were included in the so-called theory of the Navy, and naval strategy was replaced by the category of “strategic use of the Navy.”

That is, the performers and names have changed, but not the essence.

Quote: Doccor18

And since the mid-80s, OPEC has been hobbled by its defense doctrine...

Since 1987, the Union by that time was already... everything. And this was a political decision that affected not only the fleet, but also the Armed Forces as a whole, on which it had an equally negative impact

Quote: Doccor18

And all these hesitations are in theory

They weren't there

Quote: Doccor18

Either we need large NK, or we don’t, because there is a “miracle weapon” in the form of submarines

Alexander, what you are writing about are two political “shake-ups”, the first of which was organized by the Armed Forces Khrushchev, and the second by Gorbachev. Moreover, Khrushchev “Khrushchevized” at a time when the concept of a fleet, for the reasons mentioned above, could not yet exist.

Quote: Doccor18

Then we don’t need medium-caliber naval artillery; a whole series of destroyers are being designed/built for it...

Strategic objectives do not determine the caliber of destroyer artillery. And this despite the fact that the return of medium-caliber artillery to ships is not a matter of strategic objectives, but of methods for solving them, which can change or be unsuccessful.
For example, the presence of a correct strategic task was solved using the wrong methods (BOD in the ocean under the cover of RKR), but what are the questions regarding the strategic task? You accuse the navy of

Quote: Doccor18

The USSR once built a huge fleet, but often without reference to its main strategic objectives

And here the binding is obvious, including 1144.

Quote: Doccor18

You can also add a decent variety of types, in the absence of universal launchers

There was heterogeneity, but not on the scale that people usually lament. If you look at the types of ships with the same US/NATO, everything is not so scary, especially considering that the US Navy integrated with NATO and did not have the need to keep all types of ships in its composition (diesel-electric submarines, for example)
And the UPU is generally evil.

[Doccor18]

but not on the scale that people usually grieve about

Everything is in a complex. And then we complain that the repair base can’t keep up...

And the UPU is generally evil.

So? Standardization and universality have many advantages, if you don’t go to extremes. For me, the USSR Navy was sorely lacking a single destroyer-class missile and artillery ship. But without UPU it was almost impossible to create it.

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Quote: Doccor18

Everything is in a complex. And then we complain that the repair base can’t keep up...

Let's take PLAT - in the USSR we had 12 types, in the USA - the same number. But we also had SSGNs, because the concept.
Let's take a specially built RKR - we had 4 types, the USA had 9 types
Missile destroyers and BODs - we had 5 types, well, six, if 1134a and b are considered two different types, well, let's add the post-war artillery units, projects 30 and 56, there will be eight. Americans have 7
And so on.

Quote: Doccor18

So?

Well, the Americans created the UVP, the result is
The missile defense and missile defense systems fit well.
PLUR has to be cut to the living - the ASROC’s firing range is simply ridiculous
Anti-ship missiles don’t fit at all.
As a result, the Americans install UVP, but in addition to them - separate launchers for anti-ship missiles, separate launchers for short-range missiles

Quote: Doccor18

For me, the USSR Navy lacked a single destroyer-class missile and artillery ship.

You understand that the same "Arly" is in fact not a station wagon, but an air defense/anti-aircraft defense ship, and it does not cope well with anti-aircraft defense tasks. And yes, maybe drag a bunch of missile launchers to shell the shore, if that’s the case. What tasks could he solve in the USSR Navy?
And in order to make a single ship in the 70-80s to solve the entire range of tasks of missile and artillery ships of the USSR, the RKR, not the ESM, was needed.

[Aleks88]

The USA has a wonderful SM-6, there is TASM. Everything fits into the MK-41. There is a Phalanx, but it is removed from the Berks. And 96 missiles. different shooting range - this is a very large possibility of variation for a separate task. What’s the point of having 96 air defense systems on 1144 if there’s a massive attack? What about 1164, with its blind spots? And the fact that Americans don’t travel alone (I don’t consider Zamvolt a full-fledged ship)

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Quote: Aleks88

The USA has a wonderful SM-6, there is TASM. Everything fits into the MK-41.

TASM was removed from service when I was young.

Quote: Aleks88

And 96 missiles. different tier - this is a very large possibility of variation for a separate task

Air defense? Yes, definitely. PLO - no. Strike on the shore - yes, but with restrictions, only missiles a la Tomahawk, something more serious is not allowed. Anti-ship - not at all. Where did you see the variation here?

Quote: Aleks88

What’s the point of having 96 air defense systems on 1144 if there’s a massive attack?

Same as UVP, rate of fire is the same

Quote: Aleks88

What about 1164, with its blind spots?

The blind spot is not a question for the UVP.

[Aleks88]

// And UPU is generally evil // That is. again the whole world is building ships incorrectly, and we are the smartest. Are the American, British, Chinese, Japanese, Korean navies wrong?
We just had the wrong approach; where we could have gotten by with one ship, we used two. For example, a combination of 1155 and 956. Or RTOs without air defense, or missiles on an aircraft carrier. It is not entirely clear what our admirals were thinking. Obviously not with my head

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Quote: Aleks88

Those. again the whole world is building ships incorrectly, and we are the smartest

Alexander, the ship is built for tasks that are determined by the fleet. None of the fleets you mentioned above

Quote: Aleks88

American, British, Chinese, Japanese, Korean fleets

It was not created for active opposition to a superior enemy fleet. Therefore, it is not surprising that the ships are different.

Quote: Aleks88

We just had the wrong approach; where we could have gotten by with one ship, we used two. For example, a combination of 1155 and 956.

It was impossible to get by with just one ship. The mosquito cannot be put into the air defense system, and the refusal of the 130 mm deprives the ship of the ability to support the landing force, which was important. Do you even know that the 956, when initially designed, was not a destroyer, but an artillery support ship for the landing force to replace the aging Project 68-bis cruisers?

Quote: Aleks88

Either an RTO without air defense, or missiles on an aircraft carrier. It is not entirely clear what our admirals were thinking. Obviously not with my head

And you will study what the same missiles on the TAVKR are for. Much will become clear immediately.

[Aleks88]

// instead of the aging cruisers of Project 68-bis? //
I wonder how to cram into 8 kTn everything that was in 15-18 kTn 68 bis.
Of course, you can remove the weight of the armor, but it doesn’t fit
We didn’t have UVP back then. I was always amazed by the size of the P-500/700/1000 and the Mosquito. Also anti-aircraft S-75/200
like the Americans did Harpoon, the French Exocet, the Norwegians made their own analogue of Harpoon. No need to talk about subsonic speed, the flight mode of Western anti-ship missiles is more interesting than Granit, flying 20 km. I wish I could give him a control center for 500 km and that’s all
//the same missiles on the TAVKR //
if I’m not mistaken, at 1143.5 there were as many as 192 short-range missiles “Dagger” and AK630 (I strongly doubt its ability to shoot down anti-ship missiles), but for some reason the Indians purchased Barak-8 for their aircraft carrier of the same type, and China supplied its own air defense systems and an analogue of the Dutch Goalkeeper
It’s unclear why 12 P-700s were planted on the aircraft carrier. the eternal desire of admirals for a universal ship.
I would prefer a specialized air defense destroyer, like Daring.
// and the landing artillery support ship //
where should we land troops? even with the anti-ship missiles there it’s deadly

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Quote: Aleks88

I wonder how to cram into 8 kTn everything that was in 15-18 kTn 68 bis.

Please read the full text of the comment

Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk

When initially designed, 956 was not a destroyer, but an artillery support ship for the landing force instead of the aging Project 68-bis cruisers?

We are not talking about replacing 68-bis with an analogue one. We are talking about a ship capable of supporting a landing force when the 68 bis retires. 2*2-130-mm with their frantic rate of fire were quite capable of this.

Quote: Aleks88

No need to talk about subsonic speed, the flight mode of Western anti-ship missiles is more interesting than Granite flying 20 km

It’s possible for you personally. And for the United States, the same "Granit" was a practically undetectable anti-ship missile until the ESSMs were introduced into the fleet en masse
That is, the US Navy for about 20 years did not have fire weapons to combat our anti-ship missiles - they could only rely on electronic warfare.
The thing is that in the early 80s, supersonic anti-ship missiles had the same advantages as hypersonic ones now

Quote: Aleks88

If I’m not mistaken, at 1143.5 there were as many as 192 short-range missiles “Dagger” and AK630 (I strongly doubt its ability to shoot down anti-ship missiles), but for some reason the Indians purchased Barak-8 for their aircraft carrier of the same type

Because the Dagger was a development of the 80s, and by the time the Indians decided what to put on their AB it was simply outdated

Quote: Aleks88

It’s unclear why 12 P-700s were planted on the aircraft carrier. the eternal desire of admirals for a universal ship.

You’re just not aware of the concept of using TAVKR. Our 1143.5 is not an aircraft carrier, but an air defense aircraft carrier. Which actually does not have adequate strike capabilities.
In the USA, the Nimitz is huge and carried both strike and fighter aircraft. Our admirals were not allowed to build this (although they had been asking since the 60s) in the end they had to rely on MRA and SSGN, in some cases - RKR, but they all lacked combat stability in the conditions of the dominance of enemy aviation, here is the TAVKR of their IA and provided for her.
Accordingly, the TAVKR did not require an escort similar to the AUG, but the stability of the AMG with it at its head had to be ensured. There are two options here - either put an attack ship as an escort, thereby weakening the force that was supposed to kill the AUG, or give the TAVKR some anti-ship missiles, which IN THIS LOGIC is more correct and cheaper

Quote: Aleks88

where should we land troops? even with the anti-ship missiles there it’s deadly

You can look at the SA's plans at your leisure. At the World Cup, for example, it was planned to take the Straits by landing

[Aleks88]

// And for the USA, the same "Granit" was a practically undetectable anti-ship missile //
The F-14 was able to intercept 5 of 6 targets simulating the X-22. With an AWACS aircraft hovering 300 km from the AUG, Granit will be visible from 600 km away. And it is still unclear how to give anti-ship missiles to the control center at such a distance. Here, one respected author once wrote that the AUG approached the PRC undetected from any satellite.
And giving a control center to a nuclear submarine is even more difficult.
Neither RKR nor Kuznetsov had a chance to destroy the AUG; this topic was raised at VO more than once.
// also laughed about the landing //
First, clear Turkey of nuclear weapons, with Pershings and Inzherlik, then land on the glass with 775? Once one party leader of the country threatened to “build” a second strait nearby
// give the aircraft-carrying cruiser some missiles //
and then this idea was radically revised, and in 3 countries.
Getting within 500-600 km of Nimitz is not realistic. If I remember, Long Beach had a long-range Talos air defense system with nuclear warheads, just for destroying the missile defense system

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Quote: Aleks88

The F-14 was able to intercept 5 of 6 targets simulating the X-22.

In theory. In practice, Phoenixes were not given to combat pilots - they were too expensive. Therefore, the vast majority of pilots never saw these missiles. You can imagine the effectiveness of this weapon in real combat.

Quote: Aleks88

With an AWACS aircraft hovering 300 km from the AUG, Granit will be visible from 600 km away.

And who said that he would hang there? Firstly, it is not always posted there, and secondly, there is usually only one such post. You are considering a certain ideal situation for an AUG, when the AWACS is located exactly between the SSGN and the AUG, and the SSGN operates at its maximum range. And he can shoot back from 300 km, whichever way the card falls, and even from the other side, since the anti-aircraft divisions were deployed as a curtain.

Quote: Aleks88

And it’s still not clear how to give anti-ship missiles to a control center at such a distance.

In the USSR there were reconnaissance aviation regiments for this purpose. They could. Of course, there were no guarantees, but they were often discovered. Actually, in the USSR there was a combination of ZGRLS, a powerful air reconnaissance component + “Legend”. In the Russian Federation... But we are not talking about the Russian Federation now.

Quote: Aleks88

Neither RKR nor Kuznetsov had a chance to destroy the AUG; this topic was raised at VO more than once.

Judging by your calculations, you are only at the beginning of studying these issues. They did - under certain conditions. The same TAVKR "Kyiv" at the BS in the Mediterranean had fun by practicing, on average, twice a day issuing control commands for its Basalts to the aircraft carriers of the 6th Fleet, and about 300 control centers were issued for one BS.

Quote: Aleks88

First, clear Turkey of nuclear weapons, with Pershings and Inzherlik, then land on the glass with 775?

Do you even have an idea of ​​how the SA planned to clear the airborne landing zones before the landing itself? :))))) About as you write - with treatment to the point of complete unsurvivability of every living thing, including the mosquito. Art and so on - this is for unforeseen accidents :)

Quote: Aleks88

and then this idea was radically revised, and in 3 countries.

You always look back at the fleets of other countries. And you should look at the TASKS of these fleets. When you understand that not a single fleet except ours has set itself the task of countering the AUS led by the Nimitzes, then everything will fall into place for you

Quote: Aleks88

Getting within 500-600 km of Nimitz is not realistic.

This was not necessary. Anti-ship missiles were needed to crack on AB only perhaps in Mediterranean conditions, with BS. As for the rest, these anti-ship missiles are not against AB, but against KUGs that have approached our AMG at an indecent distance

[Aleks88]

// Phoenix //
They didn’t give it, missiles cost 500 thousand in the 70s
// AWACS //
Usually there are 4 AWACS aircraft on the AB; in reality, in a combat situation they will be constantly hovering.
// Mediterranean //
In a combat situation, the TAVKR "Kyiv" would not even come close to the AUG. Boiler turbines are no match for nuclear power plants and gas turbines. especially the boilers, which were mercilessly driven even in parking lots. I want to have light.
// KUG //
I don’t know about the KUG amers, I think they understood from the Second World War that they needed to sink ships with aircraft, taking advantage of their advantage in speed and awareness.
// fleet of other countries //
I think the PRC is doing this, but the composition of the fleet is similar to the USA or Korea or Japan. Only Korea did not have strike weapons until recently. Everyone is developing in approximately the same direction. Only we are taking an alternative path.
For example, about AWACS, we forgot about the A-30 and Tu-50 or Il-142 for 20 years. In my opinion, in a modern war (nuclear-free), the most important part
// landing //
well, landing troops on the lunar surface is generally .. ((
By the way, I don’t know of a single successful landing, except for the Allied landing in Normandy, but there is a total advantage in the air and at sea. Plbus titanic preparation and logistics. And then, barely, we saved

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Quote: Aleks88

Usually there are 4 AWACS aircraft on the AB; in reality, in a combat situation they will be constantly hovering.

In combat - one, maximum two periodically. There is not enough resource for more

Quote: Aleks88

In a combat situation, the TAVKR "Kyiv" would not even come close to the AUG.

BS, combat services, were precisely that “combat situation” - our TAVKR, located several hundred kilometers from the AB, were ready to launch a missile strike on the external control center. To take away the AUG means to leave without cover the SSBNs with which the first strike was to be delivered.

Quote: Aleks88

I don’t know about the Amers KUG

And you read why they reactivated their LCs

Quote: Aleks88

I think they realized with the Second World War that ships had to be sunk by aircraft, taking advantage of their advantage in speed and awareness.

You are absolutely right. But war at sea is not limited to the sinking of surface ships, it also includes anti-aircraft defense and strike functions, when it is necessary to destroy land targets with cruise missiles. And this can easily be done by the KUG, having an aircraft carrier in distant cover, or even without it at all. And our identified AMG will be beaten with everything they have, and if there is a KUG nearby that can carry out such an attack...
In general, in the Soviet Navy, the deployment of anti-ship missiles on the TAVKR was completely justified. Another question is that it would be better for us to go to ordinary AUGs like the American ones, yes, I don’t argue with that at all.

Quote: Aleks88

I think the PRC is doing this, but the composition of the fleet is similar to the USA or Korea or Japan.

China is now trying to mirror the US Navy - it is moving towards heavy aircraft carriers (TAVKR similar to ours - an intermediate stage) and this is right. But for political reasons, we did not have such an opportunity, and it was not the admirals’ fault.

Quote: Aleks88

For example, about AWACS, we forgot about the A-30 for 50 years

The USSR developed this topic - remember the Yak-44, an excellent analogue of Hokai could have turned out. And the Russian Federation... let's not talk about sad things.

Quote: Aleks88

By the way, I don’t know of a single successful landing, except for the Allied landing in Normandy

Well, how? :))) Our Black Sea Fleet showed exemplary landings in WWII. In WWII, in addition to Normandy, the Allies had a successful landing in Sicily and further to Italy, there were other landings - the entire US struggle with Japan on land was just continuous landings :)))) The Baltic Fleet, by the way, also landed well at the end of the war.

[DenVB]

Quote: Amateur

"wise thought" of W. Churchill: "If you want to ruin a country, give it a cruiser"

Churchill had no such thoughts.

[Non-fighter]

Yes, he is not needed like that.

The main problem of our Navy, regardless of the form of government, is that it was not needed by anyone except the state. This is from the time of Peter 1. If we need a fleet, we build it, if we don’t need it, it will rot. A positive example is our icebreaker fleet. If we count in tons, then what has already been built/laid down is enough for a couple of full-fledged aircraft carrier groups. Now think for yourself who needs an icebreaker fleet. Another positive example is our submarine fleet of strategic missile carriers. It's clear why they are needed.

[Doccor18]

The main problem of our Navy, regardless of the form of government, is that no one needed it

I would say that it (the Navy) is sometimes needed, sometimes it is not needed. And “just” you need to: 1. decide, 2. understand why it is needed.

[Amateur]

I would really like such a fleet in Russia,

Why does Russia need such a fleet? Does it have colonies in Europe, Asia and Australia and Oceania (isn’t Germany a colony of the USA?). And how much will Russia use to maintain such a fleet? The USA can afford such a fleet because they print their dollars on a photocopier (the US national debt exceeds 33 trillion candy wrappers) and the fleet is needed to maintain the dollar exchange rate.

The fleet is needed to maintain the dollar exchange rate to maintain the fleet, which supports the dollar exchange rate...

Russia needs a fleet only to protect its waters, and nuclear submarines as part of the nuclear triad for guaranteed retaliatory destruction of any enemy.

[Fotoceva62]

But I agree, they build what is needed and what they can. About ''tankers and cutters...'', without an auxiliary complex and coastal infrastructure there is trouble... We gathered like... I love the Sea from the shore and Ships in the pictures...

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Quote: Fotoceva62

I agree, they build what is needed and what they can.

What they can do is for sure, what is needed is definitely not

[Alexey RA]

Quote: Fotoceva62

But I agree, they build what is needed and what they can.

Yeah, yeah... for example, Project 22160 instead of MPK and PLO corvettes according to projects of the same shipyard.

[Dutchman Michel]

Commenting on the “National Security Strategy,” the Author did not pay attention to UAVs at all and only barely mentioned unmanned boats. And behind them, it seems to me, is the future of any fleet. They will solve global ocean problems cheaply and with small forces. Let me remind you that the Turks seem to have already laid down their first aircraft carrier UAVcarrier

[Boa kaa]

Quote: Dutchman Michel

The author did not pay any attention to UAVs and only barely mentioned unmanned boats. And behind them, it seems to me, is the future of any fleet.

Michel, for reference: the article is about the role of the FLEET, and not UAVs, which are the WEAPONS of the fleet, i.e. BSF!
Global ocean problems will be solved by PLATFORMS on which these UAVs will be delivered to the database area.
But the article is still about the directions of development of American submarines. Perhaps he failed to convey this idea clearly. In the following opuses I will try to more specifically formulate the topic and subject of conversation and discussion.
Sincerely, Boa.

[Dutchman Michel]

article about the role of the FLEET, not UAVs, which are the WEAPONS of the fleet

But what about the fleet itself, without weapons? Any warship becomes a ship only when it is equipped with weapons. And the role of the fleet is determined precisely by weapons

[Boa kaa]

Quote: Dutchman Michel

But what about the fleet itself, without weapons?

This is nonsense! But in addition to UAVs, there are SLBMs, CRBDs, AUVs, anti-ship missiles, logistics, defense, and much more. And these are all weapons of the fleet: its ships, i.e. platforms. Therefore, your passion for UAVs is of a private nature, but cannot in any way replace Tridents, M51.2, R-30, and other BSF.

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Alexander, good day!
So this is your article :))) I didn’t realize it right away.
Thank you!

With the advent of the latest Yasen-M type submarines and Chinese 095 type submarines, as well as Poseidon-type AUVs in the Russian Federation, the US Navy urgently needed a new attack submarine to counter such an underwater enemy.

I thought that this virgin was a shock version of the usual one. I am wrong? Are there any other significant improvements?

Currently, the US Navy is designing and carrying out R&D of systems for a new generation attack submarine of the SSN(X) type.

It’s very interesting what the gloomy Mormon genius comes up with...

[Boa kaa]

Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk

So this is your article :)

Andrew, You, sir, are just like a prosecutor: “as soon as there’s an article!”
To the point. The Yankees are trying to make an attack submarine (SSN(X)) that is inexpensive, but very advanced... For the first task they took Virginia, and for the second - Seawolf. But here a contradiction appeared: Virginia was made like a cheap Seawolf. But on the Wolf there are more than 600 sensors alone! three canvases of conformal sonar on each side, not counting the bow sonar and GPBA... and ammo capacity for 50 units! Therefore, we returned to the project once again, at a new technical and technological level, to play with Seawolf’s idea. Therefore, the “beam” of the new submarine will be Wolf, not Virgin. Otherwise, you won’t be able to fit in a 2-stage depreciation system. Well, then they’ll cram all the best stuff into the inside. The most interesting is the placement of the AUV, but not in the insert, but in the retractable fencing. New nuclear power plant based on LEU!!!, at least 25 torpedoes with a range of up to 200 miles! At the same time, the control center of the submarine will receive from the VII (NK, aircraft, other submarine) W = 9100 tons or more, speed 32-34 knots, PC width up to 13,2 m. Well, etc. However, the project will be ready only by 2034, and the purchase of the 1st building will be carried out in 2031. Here is a brief summary of everything that is known about the new attack submarine, which will certainly be tasked with fighting our 2M39 Poseidon product and its carriers, as well as fishing out Boreas.
Somehow, however.

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Quote: Boa constrictor KAA

You, sir, are just like a prosecutor: “as soon as there’s an article!”

And then you write: “Insinuations. I refuse to testify!”

Quote: Boa constrictor KAA

The most interesting is the placement of the AUV, but not in the insert, but in the retractable fencing. New nuclear power plant based on LEU!!!, at least 25 torpedoes with a range of up to 200 miles!

Lord, some kind of star of death. Have they come up with adequate underwater communication? It’s not right to launch torpedoes such a distance on a cable...
Although, in my IMHO, 200-mile torpedoes are kind of overkill.
Z.Y. Somewhere in the corner a Husky is quietly crying in horror...

[Boa kaa]

Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk

with 200-mile torpedoes it’s kind of overkill.

This is just wishful thinking...But anything can happen: the German Heck runs 140 km, however, it is electric and “travels” under a “periscope” so as not to go astray. (by analogy with Ilyich: - “You are walking the right road, comrades!”)

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Quote: Boa constrictor KAA

This is just a wish list for now

Let's see how they say it in Odessa. If in the end you get a torpedo for the price of two F-35Bs, then maybe it’s for the best... But the question is that the Americans have a strong underwater business, I don’t think they will be as trash as the Air Force will allow.
But yes, they are going the right way... It’s a pity.

[Boa kaa]

Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk

But yes, they are going the right way... It’s a pity.

Sorry for the bloody snot! The Yankees are sitting tight. If only 2M39 and Scythians stun them, maybe then a gap will appear in the solid fence. But the fleet faces an equally important task - the destruction of the MMD fence from Arly Berkov with their Aegis and SM-3a/b on board. Without this, all of our ICBMs in the European part (5 missile divisions!) run the risk of not fulfilling their mission requirements. And this is a complete SHVAH! So, a lot remains to be decided in the remaining peacetime.
AHA.

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Quote: Boa constrictor KAA

But the fleet faces an equally important task - the destruction of the MMD fence from Arly Berkov with their Aegis and SM-3a/b on board. Without this, all of our ICBMs in the European part (5 missile divisions!) run the risk of not fulfilling their mission requirements.

I don’t think so - they can intercept ICBMs in the initial part of the trajectory only in the immediate vicinity of the launch area. And there... it’s already very doubtful, the trajectory will go through the pole, the interceptors simply won’t have enough time

Quote: Boa constrictor KAA

If only 2M39 and Scythians stun them

Well... I don't believe in Poseidon. It’s possible to hit the base, of course, but before the war the Americans will deploy their forces at sea

[Boa kaa]

Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk

They can intercept ICBMs in the initial part of their trajectory only in the immediate vicinity of the launch area. And there... it’s already very doubtful, the trajectory will go through the pole, the interceptors simply won’t have enough time

Andrey, the Yankees cooperated with those exiled by God and got something. A hyper rocket with an infrared seeker flies into the nozzle of an ICBM. Interception is possible up to 85 seconds of acceleration. That’s why ours began to sculpt the R-30, although it is much inferior to the R-29PMU2. But she is “liquid”, and Pin is solid and nimble: OUT is 2 times shorter in time...
Regarding the trajectories and ROP of interceptors, I provided a picture in the previous article. Don't be lazy, take a look. Only our “heavies” are spared from rape by the MPR, because their routes go through Tibet, and our SLBMs from the ROP to the SLO, and off the coast of the States. That’s why the Yankees are whining and howling about the “ban” of our P-28s. They are like a Faberge sickle to them! (I wanted to write “too tough”, but it turns out quite the opposite - THEY ARE JUST TOO TOO TOO MUCH TO KIT THEM!)
About Poseidons. I personally believe the assessment of the Lechin brothers regarding the possibility of intercepting these doomsday UPA. The entry of carriers into the Ocean will be ensured by the entire Northern Fleet and the forces assigned to this operation from the Strategic Missile Forces, Yesterday and other structures. Up to GUGI. And the fact that they can also work according to AMG is beyond doubt. Much has been written and discussed about this. You probably remember all this well.
Somehow, however.

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Good morning!

Quote: Boa constrictor KAA

Interception is possible up to 85 seconds of acceleration.

What we're talking about is that it puts our land-based ballistic missiles out of reach of the SM-3

Quote: Boa constrictor KAA

Regarding the trajectories and ROP of interceptors, I provided a picture in the previous article.

Alexander:)))) Our land vehicles are “not heavy” - these are solid fuel “Yars” and “Topolis”, who will intercept them? And in general, any ICBM flying through the North Pole will be over the areas covered by blue circles, will have long passed the booster section and will be at an altitude inaccessible to SM. At least in theory, they will be able to intercept liquid-fueled missiles from SSBNs near Vilyuchinsk and Severomorsk/
How do you imagine intercepting a missile, even a liquid-propellant one launched near Tatishchevo from the Black Sea, 1200 km away? That is, the interceptor must catch up with the ICBM...

[Boa kaa]

Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk

How do you imagine intercepting a missile?

Andrey, good morning. In order not to clutter up the site, I’ll write a personal message a little later, after work, in detail.

[Boa kaa]

Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk

Somewhere in the corner a Husky is quietly crying in horror...

But I haven’t heard about this “dog” for a long time... They even wrote an article about Arcturus, but there was something silent about the polar explorer’s faithful friend... And why would that be? If the PAK DA has already been somehow transferred onto the Tu-160m2, then “the hour is uneven, they could steal our Cossack” (c).
Apparently, as long as project 885 has the modernization resource, nothing new will be built. No money: SVO, floods, again the R-38 needs to be stuffed into holes...
AHA.

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Quote: Boa constrictor KAA

and there’s something silent about the polar explorer’s faithful friend... And why would that be?

Without knowing exactly what they were up to with Husky, it’s difficult to understand. It feels like the project was “a stripped-down Ash with unnecessary bells and whistles,” if so, then abandoning its construction is for the better. But how to fight on Yaseny with this SSN... I don’t know at all what will come of it.

[Boa kaa]

Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk

how to fight on Yaseni with this SSN...

1. using an AUV. Set up an anti-aircraft defense barrier from them with the task of blowing up everything underwater that does not respond to “friend or foe” identification.
2. build a “fighter” similar to Project 705MA, but on a new technology, with all the available bells and whistles.
3. develop “space” PLO. The Yankees really don't like to go deep. And up to 150m with a laser from near space they can be seen and reached.
4. improve the destruction system based on MRBMs, so that they do not have time to run far after detection.

[antivirus]

Modern Russia is not historical Russia.
Land has always been famous.
B20v usa navy. USSR-land.
Not reborn.
Even if they got up from their knees, they had not yet straightened up and shook off the dust from their pants at the knees.
It is better to analyze and determine the prospects of our land routes.
From Aldra Nevsky and even the prophetic Oleg.
Before Pozharsky and Rumyantsev with Suvorov, and Skobelev with Brusilov. And the well-known marshals of victory.
Movement, control of swamps and steppes of Eurasia.
But from the taiga to the British seas....


Not from Jersey to Ceylon

[Fedorov_Stanislav]

We have 6 frigates in the ocean zone at KTOF and KSF. For KCHF and KBF, 3 of the same frigates will be enough.

[TermNachTer]

We can say that for now this is from the category of good intentions that sent the road to who knows where))) mattress makers have a serious (systemic) crisis, and how they are going to get out of it is not yet clear. Apparently, they themselves do not have any clear solution.

[Doctor]

If we are going to go to Africa, we need security of sea communications. You can’t take out or bring in much by plane. The big question is how to do this, having such an enemy as the US Navy. And all of NATO to boot.

Any serious movement has a risk of ending like the Arctic Sea voyage.

[solar]

In accordance with this concept, the American fleet should include a smaller (compared to the current) number of cruisers and destroyers (about 80 units by 2040), but a larger (relative to 2023) number of Constellation-class guided missile frigates, as well as “ Independence" and "Freedom". It is planned to have at least 2040 corps in the fleet by 70.

The Americans have a clear shortage of cheap frigates, something like Oliver Perry, but with slightly different functions - such as ensuring presence in low-intensity conflicts and countering various “pirate actions”, including countering drones and unmanned vessels, escorting ships, air defense, anti-aircraft defense , special landing and strike operations. (Now these tasks have to be performed by expensive emitters with wear and tear on their service life)
Something like the Danish frigates - large (6600 tons), cheap (210 million), seaworthy, well armed for all occasions (even in the existing version, and even more so in the final version of the project) and with good habitability. For comparison, Constellations cost about a billion, five times more expensive.

[Alexey RA]

Quote from solar

The Americans have a clear shortage of cheap frigates, something like Oliver Perry, but with slightly different functions - such as ensuring presence in low-intensity conflicts and countering various “pirate actions”, including countering drones and unmanned vessels, escorting ships, air defense, anti-aircraft defense , special landing and strike operations.

The funny thing is that in theory the USN has these ships. More precisely, they were designed and built with the expectation of independently performing precisely these tasks in low-intensity conflicts - to release missile launchers and electromagnetic missiles.
However, over time the way design and construction, the enemy was able to grow up. And now these ships, even against the Zusuls, can only work with the support of the Burks.

[solar]

If you are talking about the LCS program, then as high-speed patrol ships, they made sense in some limited numbers, especially if they were properly implemented, but these are by no means frigates or even corvettes, as they are sometimes trying to be presented. They certainly couldn’t be a massive frigate to replace Oliver Perry; in reality, these are patrol ships for special missions (and these tasks have now been greatly narrowed in connection with the trends that you pointed out). LCS are by no means combat ships.
And if we compare with the same Danes, they have, for example, a project of a patrol ship - “Absalon”, actually for the same purposes as the LCS, but this is a ship of a completely different level - it can quite strike and fight off an attack, and It may well perform the functions of a frigate if necessary, although with limited air defense, it is inferior to the LCS only in speed. And it’s also more than 3 times cheaper than LCS, although much more.
Actually, it was on the basis of this project that the Danes made a full-fledged frigate with great modernization capabilities

[Alexey RA]

Quote from solar

If you are talking about the LCS program, then as high-speed patrol ships, they made sense in some limited numbers, especially if they were properly implemented, but these are by no means frigates or even corvettes, as they are sometimes trying to be presented. They certainly couldn’t be a massive frigate to replace Oliver Perry; in reality, these are patrol ships for special tasks

In fact, the resulting ships are, yes, weakly armed patrol ships. Project 22160, beefed up to the point of disgrace.

But formally, the task of the LCS program was to create a universal mass ship to solve the problems of anti-aircraft defense, anti-aircraft defense, work on surface targets, intercept high-speed targets, reconnaissance, supply and even the coast guard. That is, the new ships were supposed to replace the FR, TSCH and, in general, most of the small ships. Actually, for this program, the USN abandoned the FR as a class, writing off the OHP and not ordering new types.

The trouble with the LCS is that they were designed based on the concept of global victory and US world dominance. Yes, in such conditions, the LCS would be quite enough for local conflicts and stopping individual upheavals of the old opponents of the United States, who are trying to pretend to be something with the crumbs that were graciously left to them. By the way, the 2nd Fleet was reduced and then disbanded under this same concept - why did the United States need a formation dedicated exclusively to the defense of the North Atlantic.

It’s just that the world has changed during the design and construction of the LCS. The old threats have returned, plus China has been added to them. And suddenly it turned out that the LCS was not suitable for working in the Cold War mode. And we had to return to classic frigates.

[solar]

But formally the task of the LCS program was to create a universal mass ship

A universal ship must be balanced in three main components - the design itself, electronics and weapons.
There is no point in installing an expensive CIUS if the means of destruction are one 57 mm fart. And vice versa - if the ship is well armed, there is no point in saving on electronics, for example.
Oliver Perry or Arlie Burkey are examples of well-balanced ships. One is cheap and simple, the second is expensive and complex - but both are well balanced for their tasks.
But the LCS doesn’t have even close to a balance.
It's the same with the fleet as a whole. The Americans do not have a balance between expensive and cheap ships (LCS are not cheap at all. And the new frigates are not cheap either, although the basis was normal and poorly balanced). There are simply no cheap ones. Although there are plenty of tasks for them, and their functions are forced to be performed by destroyers, burning up resources.

[Alexey RA]

Quote from solar

But the LCS doesn’t have even close to a balance.

I’m saying - project 22160. In theory, what we now see under the designation LCS should have been only a base - a blank for a ship. On which modules would be hung to perform specific tasks.
The problem is that these modules were also designed based on the concept of US global dominance. Therefore, they were designed for low-intensity conflicts with a technically inferior enemy. As, indeed, the base ship - for example, an attempt to stick NSM anti-ship missiles on it was faced with the fact that the target detection range of the LCS on-board electronic warfare equipment was half as long as the flight range of these anti-ship missiles.

Quote from solar

The Americans do not have a balance between expensive and cheap ships (LCS are not cheap at all. And the new frigates are not cheap either, although the basis was normal and poorly balanced).

LCS is what a cheap ship becomes after going through all the commissions and hearings. Although if you order nuts for 90 kilo bucks per package, then where can you find something cheaper...
There were complaints about the American shipbuilding industry even under FDR - labor productivity is lower than in Europe, and wages are higher. It is not for nothing that in the second half of the 30s, the construction of ships for American companies at American shipyards, their purchase and operation had to be carried out as a state program with budget subsidies within the framework of the Merchant Marine Act of 1936.

[cat-begemot]

There is a lot of text and inappropriate abbreviations, abbreviations are annoying. It’s not informative and you have to strain to read it, bumping into another set of LETTERS. The article is not about anything. The number of aircraft, tonnage and prospects for production and decommissioning depend on the availability of trained crews. And the Americans are already having problems with sailors And the number of green pieces of paper cannot affect this.
Yes, the loss of one aircraft carrier as a result of hostilities will lead either to the locking of those remaining at their bases or to the panicked use of nuclear weapons against the enemy. America has not lost thousands of military personnel at a time for a long time and one successful attack on the AUG can drive it into depression for a long time, and those who do not want to die sailors will be sent on antidepressants or retired ashore.

[Boa kaa]

Quote: kot-begemot

The article is not about anything.

I sincerely feel sorry for you, dear. You are terribly far from the fleet, its tactics, methods of combat use, the views of the US Navy command on the combat use of AVMA...
Free advice: read Murzilka with pictures - no need to strain, everything is accessible and understandable even to children. I'm sure everything will be clear to you there too.

[cat-begemot]

You have an extremely inflated conceit that anyone cares about your opinion. I suggest that it, like your “advice,” be nestled in the back of your body, lower than your back.

[Alexey RA]

Quote: kot-begemot

Yes, the loss of one aircraft carrier as a result of hostilities will lead either to the locking of those remaining at their bases or to the panicked use of nuclear weapons against the enemy. America has not lost thousands of military personnel at a time for a long time and one successful attack on the AUG can drive it into depression for a long time, and those who do not want to die sailors will be sent on antidepressants or retired ashore.

Americans are cowardly fat hamburger eaters with no fighting spirit. They will give up after the first defeats, unable to bear losses.
For those who believed in this, it all ended with the defeat of the fleet and army, burned cities and occupation.