Unwanted guests from the sea

91
Currently, the United States has the largest and most powerful naval forces. The capabilities of their naval forces allow you to simultaneously patrol most areas of the world's oceans and, if appropriate, perform combat missions, getting to the right place for several days. It is quite clear that the greatest strategic interests of the United States are directly or indirectly connected with the northern hemisphere of the planet, where most of the major and developed countries are located. Therefore, a large part of American warships constantly on duty in the northern regions of the Atlantic, the Pacific Ocean and the nearby seas. One could be happy for the US Navy, but it will not work. Their trips can sometimes pose a threat to our country. American ships, as well as ships of the NATO countries, regularly appear near the Russian territorial waters, which gives certain grounds for concern.

Unwanted guests from the sea


The most remarkable and at the same time dangerous area for patrolling American ships is the Black Sea. According to various estimates, the total duration of their stay in the neutral waters of this sea and the ports of friendly countries is 280-300 days in a year. Famous journalist A. Karaulov, without specifying a particular year, names the number in 287 days. The American patrol of other regions alongside Russian territorial waters is proceeding with a slightly lower intensity. Regardless of the exact numbers and official reasons for such a stay, this situation looks ambiguous and therefore attracts the attention of Russian military and diplomats. At the same time, from a legal point of view, the situation is very normal. One side enjoys the right to hike in neutral waters, and the other has to watch it and take appropriate measures, but on its own territory.

Despite the complexity of the situation, the prerequisites for it are simple and understandable. The entry of American or NATO ships into the waters of one or another sea has several bases under it. The first is a show of strength. Even one modern warship is capable of delivering a lot of trouble to the enemy, not to mention a full-fledged strike group. A call at sea or at a port clearly shows the ability of the Navy to quickly come to the required area and carry out combat work in it. Secondly, such campaigns are part of the diplomatic game. If the ships of a certain country came to a certain sea, then this can only mean one thing: it has certain views of the region. Accordingly, local small states may perceive such a campaign as a kind of hint. A large country - in this case the USA - shows them that it makes sense to cooperate in economic, military, etc. spheres. Thirdly, any trip in the most beneficial way affects the experience of sailors. If in its course there will be any training events, etc., then the benefit for fleet significantly increase.

In general, by paying with fuel, food and finance, any sufficiently developed country can solve several problems at once. Strictly speaking, this is exactly what the Americans are doing in the Black Sea and other waters near the Russian borders. It is worth noting, not only from the Russian. The United States has its interests almost all over the world and therefore is trying to distribute its naval forces throughout the planet. Naturally, Europe and Asia, for obvious reasons, are receiving more attention than other continents. If we add to this the longest maritime border in the world belonging to Russia, then there are no questions left about American motives.

Occasionally, some media outlets refer to statements by some US senators and big businessmen regarding the future of a number of maritime routes. For example, they are interested in the northern sea route, as well as the route from the Baltic to the Black Sea. They are interesting enough for both business and military purposes, and therefore attract special attention. Using these routes allows you to save a lot of time on water transportation and, as a result, fuel, money and energy. Thus, patrolling warships in the waters of the Black and Northern Seas also has another basis related to the protection of trade routes. In addition, at the same time, a convenient “bridgehead” is provided for accommodating ships with missile defense missiles. The main routes of intercontinental ballistic missiles aimed at American objects run precisely through the waters of the Arctic Ocean. Therefore, to ensure their security, the United States may well use the opportunity.

The cruiser USS Vella Gulf departs from Sevastopol Sea Port 30 in January 2012 in 14-degree frost, photos from the forum forums.airbase.ru


It is also necessary to consider the types of American ships that are constantly near Russia. These are mainly Ticonderoga cruisers and Arleigh Burk destroyers, the most popular in the US Navy. Their predominance is primarily due to the amount. According to the Tikonderoga project, 27 cruisers were built, and the total number of destroyers of the Arly Burk type currently exceeds six dozen. Moreover, the destroyers are still in production, and in the future their number will only increase. However, in the case of patrolling near Russian territorial waters, not quantity, but quality is of much greater interest. Both types of ships carry universal vertical missile launchers. This means that the ammunition can be selected depending on the current situation. The modularity of launchers allows you to transport and use anti-aircraft, anti-ship, anti-submarine, etc. rockets. Thus, on board one ship can be a fairly wide range of weapons, as they say, for all occasions. Accordingly, any such ship becomes a universal means of warfare and poses a threat to the ships and ground objects of the enemy.

In this situation, Russia can take several steps at once. The simplest and most effective option seems to be the use of diplomatic “levers”. Theoretically, by pressing on some neighboring states, you can get rid of the so-called. visits of goodwill and, as a result, slightly reduce the stay of foreign ships in the vicinity of our borders. The second way to counter a possible threat — it can be implemented simultaneously with a diplomatic one — is to build up the corresponding forces in the region. Since the matter concerns cruisers and destroyers with missile complexes for various purposes, it is necessary to prepare in several directions at once. Ideally, in the area of ​​the possible appearance of ships of the likely enemy should be on duty their ships and multipurpose submarines. In addition, you will need to create an anti-aircraft missile "shield" over the area, so that the ships could not attack ground targets.

It is easy to see that both ways of confronting a possible threat relate to the development of their own armed forces. As a matter of fact, this method can solve a whole range of problems at once. But he is not a panacea. As recent shows storyThe buildup of forces of one of the parties may lead to the beginning of an arms race and its not always pleasant and useful consequences. Nevertheless, it is clear from the history of the last century that only developed armed forces can effectively resist and deter a potential enemy, and also not allow him to come close to his territory.


On the materials of the sites:
http://globalsecurity.org/
http://defense-update.com/
http://moment-istini.ru/
http://flot.com/
91 comment
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +11
    19 February 2013 09: 46
    It was always interesting that the Russian Navy would be able to oppose the Americans on the Black Sea. At least there is a nuclear submarine in the northern and pacific ones, but here, except for "Moscow"? Large landing ships and patrol boats are not really designed to counter cruisers and destroyers with URO. All hope for aviation probably
    1. +26
      19 February 2013 09: 51
      And why can not we reopen the bases in Cuba and Vietnam? Only two bases (the USA has dozens of such bases around the world) can solve many strategic, political and, as a result, economic problems. And it is not necessary to deploy nuclear missiles there, just the very presence will be a deterrent. Money seems to have appeared, so why aren't we taking any measures?
      1. +9
        19 February 2013 10: 06
        ShturmKGB
        And it is not necessary to deploy nuclear missiles there, just the very presence will be a deterrent.

        There is simply nothing to post there, and the technical staff is unlikely to scare anyone.
        1. +2
          19 February 2013 11: 10
          Why post something? ...
          Skillful bluff in wise hands will be more important than any show of strength!
          In addition, it is not known where the maps of the long-term mining of US and British ports by Abwehr officers during the last war are located ... Or maybe we have them ....
          1. +8
            19 February 2013 12: 18
            And he can make inflatable ships, and put them in front of everyone and the more the better, until there are real ones. We can make tanks inflatable, and air defense systems. laughing
          2. +6
            19 February 2013 16: 52
            In the 60s, the father of the Soviet nuclear bomb proposed mining the deep-sea western (and eastern) coast of the United States with the expectation that in an endangered period cause tsunamis that could cover the coast inland up to 300 km. Even in the Politburo he (academician Andrei Sakharov) was called bloodthirsty. But it is not known whether mining was carried out or if everything remained the version of our academician. I think that if you periodically raise this information in the media (cleverly) then real bases in Cuba are not necessary. The naive question immediately arises: why are there still no our Navy bases ?!
            1. alex21411
              +1
              19 February 2013 18: 00
              As for mining ... It is not for nothing that our nuclear submarines quite often see offshore clay mines ... and these are only known facts of detection, and the multi-purpose submarines were there, and that leads to some thoughts drinks
            2. NOBODY EXCEPT US
              +1
              19 February 2013 22: 44
              Do not comfort yourself with hope .... although as they say she dies last ..
        2. 0
          20 February 2013 07: 47
          .... How is it in Syria? Someone scared ??? Refueling and repairman (((((
          Moscow would stand there eh ...
      2. +7
        19 February 2013 10: 21
        In order to create a base, you need to have something that will go there (one and a half cripples, meaning the Navy, does not count). Thus, everything depends on the construction of modern ships. That's when they will be, then it is possible to consider the issue of bases, although even without bases they can greatly change the situation.
      3. +3
        19 February 2013 10: 31
        There is nothing to place at these bases - everything was cut into needles, and what is left can still go to sea and from its bases, although the bases in Cuba and Vietnam, in Kamran, were very convenient ... and in Sakotra Emene is also close to Diego Garcia ...
      4. +1
        19 February 2013 10: 58
        ShturmKGB
        money seemed to appear, so why aren't we taking any measures?

        Yeah, the question is why, but ...... Apparently not yet ripe!
      5. redwolf_13
        0
        19 February 2013 17: 00
        I will not lie, but it seems that the base in Cuba has been given to the PRC. It is a former center for radio surveillance and interception and a base of submarines and auxiliary ships. Infa is not checked on 100 prts. So I apologize in advance
      6. 0
        19 February 2013 18: 20
        Because neither Cuba nor Vietnam give permission to open them.
      7. 0
        19 February 2013 18: 26
        For example, Vietnam said that it would not give its port to anyone. Considering that he himself is now actively conducting re-equipment of the fleet (by the way, by our ships and Pl). So in the near future they will need all the basing facilities.

        Well, in Cuba, dumb. The last time that tm posted something serious, a little nuclear war did not start.
        Here at the expense of Venezuela one would think .... under the guise of exporting tanks, La, etc. put in a hitch Iskander ... a bolt to transport him there)).
        By the way, we may soon lose this country. Chavez has almost merged .... Amers will put their puppet there and we have minus one ally!
        1. 0
          21 February 2013 11: 42
          dear "minusists", in order to put cons, you don't need a lot of brains, but explaining the reason is too much ... I understand ... so please at least give some explanations in connection with what do you disagree .... gentlemen hi
      8. sorokin
        +3
        19 February 2013 23: 20
        ShturmKGB
        And why can not we reopen the bases in Cuba and Vietnam?
        Can not. Vietnam is not the same. Vietnam sold out ......
        After the signing of the bilateral trade agreement between Vietnam and the United States (BTO) in 2001, trade relations between the two countries achieved a positive result. " Recall that in 2001 the volume of bilateral trade between the two countries amounted to only 1,4 billion US dollars, but in 2009 it reached 15 billion US dollars. The United States has become Vietnam's largest export market. In addition, due to WTO accession, Vietnam enjoys the right of preferential taxes for imported goods in the United States, and therefore the volume of Vietnam's exported goods to the United States grew from 1,05 billion US dollars in 2001 to 12 billion US dollars in 2009. Even during the global economic slowdown in 2009, US exports to Vietnam increased by 11%, higher compared to other ASEAN countries. According to the results of 2012, the trade turnover between Russia and Vietnam will reach only $ 3,5 billion.
        1. 0
          20 February 2013 00: 50
          As he comes around, he will respond ... Something has divorced a lot of them in our markets, but has crept into the cracks of city blocks ..... It's time to rake away ...
        2. audentes
          -1
          20 February 2013 12: 57
          Here I am about it
        3. 0
          21 February 2013 08: 18
          Who sang this to you?


          Russian Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev arrived in Vietnam. Here he discusses the issue of restoring the base of the Russian ships in Cam Ranh. “We also discussed the creation of a base of Russian ships in Kamrani. This is a topic on the agenda, it continues to be coordinated,” Medvedev admitted.

          The Vietnamese side decides how to formalize relations with partners, ITAR-TASS reports.

          http://www.vesti.ru/doc.html?id=952730
      9. audentes
        +1
        20 February 2013 12: 56
        Yes, yes ... we have long been both Vietnam and Cuba .....
      10. Quiet
        +1
        20 February 2013 17: 46
        In my opinion, the problem is this: Everyone needs to pay for the placement of the bases. In Russia, rearmament began. The budget, although large but not rubber. And as for the bases .... this time will come !!! After many years, Russia shook herself, woke up, looked around and began to rise !!! angry
        LORD OF RUSSIA HELP, FRIENDS !!!! good
        1. The comment was deleted.
    2. +5
      19 February 2013 10: 04
      with the commissioning of 11356M and submarines
      And introducing AUG into the World Cup is suicide.
      + The same Moscow with 16 bases of blood will drink a lot.
      1. +4
        19 February 2013 10: 35
        Quote: leon-iv
        and to introduce AUG in the World Cup is suicide.
        That's right. But if Arly gets in there, it will not seem enough. Although the Black Sea is better to have a small strike fleet (10 frigates). Anyone can get from him there.
        1. 0
          19 February 2013 11: 19
          Here you see what’s the matter.
          AB is the basis of the grouping and the main means of reconnaissance submarines with helicopters.
          That is, 1/3 should be taken at least for Asroki mk at Nastam’s plan to have 6 Warsaw and Alrosa will let anyone slip. So more Warsaw will be with clubs.
          1/3 of this at least will need to be shoved on the SM, at best, because the raids will be "Mama Do not Cry," and the Aegis system is still not clear what efficiency it has.
          Well, the remaining axes are so tears.
          Threat forgot to add. Ticks can be written off to start even earlier.
      2. to water
        +3
        19 February 2013 13: 55
        I propose to place an N number of Club-K complexes on the Black Sea to help "Moscow", then this reservoir is guaranteed to become a mass grave for them, if anything. Only this information about the placement must be correctly presented to the likely enemy. Make a kind of leakage of information about the secret location, but without specifying a specific location. And then refer to the asymmetric response to their global missile defense.
        1. +2
          19 February 2013 14: 46
          The club itself will host almost the entire Mediterranean Sea in Tartus at gunpoint, such images will simply block the entrance to the World Cup!
        2. -1
          20 February 2013 20: 01
          We didn’t think 20000 thousand poplars along the coast — through 70 cm — generally normal — everything is in shock ... in the Far East 50000 poplars — through 50 cm — all in ah ... e. In the north, let’s let 553 borea .... And you are in good shape, shoes polished ..... good
          1. to water
            0
            21 February 2013 12: 12
            I consider your irony inappropriate. If you have a different opinion, then I propose to justify it. Only in this case a constructive dialogue is obtained. "Reject - offer" and only so.
      3. +2
        19 February 2013 21: 50
        The same Moscow with 16 basalts of blood will drink a lot.

        The Vulcan complex (P-1000, SS-N-12 mod.2 SANDBOX) has been installed on the Moskva GRKR, two (four) of the sixteen launchers are loaded with missiles with a special warhead, just with the modernization of all four, only Moskva was modernized , the rest did not have time, the wild 90s began ...
    3. +3
      19 February 2013 10: 26
      After 2 volleys of new Moskva missiles, a whole group of 16 ships will hardly seem to be accurate, in addition, they plan to supply and deploy coastal anti-ship missiles to the Black Sea, they have a range of over 300 km, and the sea from Crimea to Tourland is about 420 km, and of course the aviation itself.
      1. +3
        19 February 2013 11: 21
        The main thing is that “Moscow” has the opportunity to fire this volley. They will suppress our electronics and all the power of missiles down the drain. But the coastal complexes are yes.
        1. +1
          19 February 2013 11: 37
          Oga growler over Sevastopol will fly))))
        2. Misantrop
          0
          19 February 2013 14: 33
          Quote: 1976AG
          Suppress our electronics and all the power of rockets down the drain. But coastal complexes, yes.

          You might think that coastal complex guidance electronics are much more difficult to suppress wink They don’t even need equipment there, enough of the Islamist fanatic with a bag of TNT
          1. +1
            19 February 2013 15: 00
            oga it will be so rude to stand on the shore and the calculation to look at the naked heifers and the guard to fry the barbecue.
          2. +2
            19 February 2013 17: 10
            Today, the electronics of the coastal complexes are more modern than those of "Moscow". Modernization of the coastal complex and the cruiser is a task that is incomparable either in time or in finance. And as for the fanatics, I do not understand, did you decide to put complexes on the city beach?
            1. Misantrop
              +2
              19 February 2013 20: 42
              Quote: 1976AG
              I do not understand, you decided to put complexes on the city beach?

              And in the Crimea it’s not far from everything, to the launch pad, to the beach. And Tatar self-captures all over the Crimea to hell, all the roads were saddled with their junkies. And the cities around the perimeter. Happen what a mess - get out hell
              1. +1
                19 February 2013 22: 08
                Then bathers can mine "Moscow" too.
    4. Region65
      +8
      19 February 2013 10: 35
      Quote: Dangerous
      It was always interesting that the Russian Navy could be opposed to the Americans

      the whole point is that no one from the outside will go into the Black Sea without the permission of Turkey))) but as you know 08.08.08 Turkey did not let tin cans of NATO and the USA into the Black Sea under different pretexts for exactly as much time as it took the Russian troops to gouge Mishka Srakakashvili’s military infrastructure will return home))) so that in peacetime let Pindosaurs plow around as much as they like, I think that in the event of a war with the United States (which of course will not) Turkey will also pose obstacles for all there are overseas)))) because Turkey is on its own mind, and the fact that it seems to be an ally of the United States and also a member of NATO still does not say anything)))) it was already shown in August 2008
    5. Misantrop
      +2
      19 February 2013 10: 45
      Quote: Dangerous
      All hope for aviation is probably

      Yeah, one Sushka squadron (dragged as much from Mongolia at one time) is a sufficient replacement for the MRAD PRIVATE FIRM winked
      1. VAF
        VAF
        +3
        19 February 2013 14: 28
        Quote: Misantrop
        is a sufficient substitute for Mrad Black Sea Fleet


        Naturally not +! drinks But ... I would not "write off" the Su-24, because there are two groups. one with the X-58 mi ...



        The second with the X-59'mi ...



        not forgetting that there is also a Su-30M2 link (Krymsie) .....



        so the "uninvited guests" .... will have a very hard time soldier
        1. Misantrop
          +3
          19 February 2013 14: 39
          Quote: vaf
          "uninvited guests" .... it will be very difficult

          There would be at least a regiment of them with means of amplification ... Otherwise, several planes are not too serious. The "probable friends" in Crimea have VERY serious support from the lured repatriates. They rustle through their channels beforehand and ... the planes simply won't take off, the cover of the airfield is purely nominal
          1. VAF
            VAF
            +3
            19 February 2013 15: 46
            Quote: Misantrop
            There would be at least a regiment with reinforcements ...


            Well .. when the "roast cock bites". then ... "they will scrape up .... on the bottom of the barrel" crying (Voronezh, Millerovsky, well, and with Shagol pull up), in principle, there is a base where ..... Anapa, Krymsk, Akhtari, though there will be a problem with the su-24 range, but ..... refueling on the return, and for the su-34s and su-30s .. and that's enough.

            Quote: Misantrop
            The "probable friends" in Crimea have VERY serious support from the lured repatriates. They rustle through their channels beforehand and ... the planes simply won't take off, the cover of the airfield is purely nominal


            Here I agree to all 100%! +! drinks
            1. +2
              19 February 2013 16: 33
              Here I agree to all 100%! +!
              But not me.
              If there is such a situation, they will glow for more than one year.
              And given that the Ukrainian army will soon be 70 thousand, the issue of the status of Crimea will be resolved quickly.
              Here, 500 paratroopers were transferred to the Chelyaba with Ivanovo, and there was 7vdd nearby.
              Customize BDK + BTA from the sea and Mistral as a coordinator
              after 17 years it will all be quite real.
              1. Misantrop
                +4
                19 February 2013 20: 34
                Quote: leon-iv
                the issue with the status of Crimea will be resolved quickly

                Well, what does the status of Crimea have to do with it? Will paratroopers start chasing Wahhabis? Or will the Mejlis be arrested? In 1941, they also thought that everything would be fine with resistance, they organized partisan warehouses and bases ... But they all went to the Germans. Guess three times, who helped them in this? Is there a firm belief that this time will be different? Share your optimism.

                Someone Grachev, too, Grozny was going to take one regiment. Already forgotten?
                1. mamba
                  +4
                  19 February 2013 21: 10
                  Quote: Misantrop
                  In 1941, they also thought that everything would be fine with resistance, they organized partisan warehouses and bases ... But they all went to the Germans. Guess three times, who helped them in this?

                  When organizing secret warehouses for partisan units in Crimea, the NKVD used guides from local Tatars. I think they were not random people, but as it turned out later, they were too practical. After the capture of Crimea by the Germans, these "proxies" began to steal property, food and weapons from the mothballed warehouses. There was enough good for himself, for relatives, for all the familiar tribesmen. But, as usual, someone was cheated and there was a soft knock at the Gestapo. The "confidants" were seized, interrogated with partiality, handed over to the Germans everything stolen and showed all the warehouses they knew, and also gave away the places of concentration of partisan detachments. As a result, the partisan movement in Crimea was practically suppressed.
                  1. Misantrop
                    0
                    19 February 2013 22: 00
                    Quote: mamba
                    As a result, the partisan movement in Crimea was almost suppressed
                    I have two grandfathers (brothers and grandmothers) guerrilla in the Yalta squad. According to their stories, a completely different picture was obtained. And about practical conductors, and about the suppressed partisan movement. And the rest of the relatives didn’t leave Crimea for the war. And ... also nothing like your theory ... winked
                    1. mamba
                      +3
                      19 February 2013 23: 42
                      Quote: Misantrop
                      nothing like your theory

                      Glory to the heroic partisans of the Crimea, including your relatives. hi My many relatives fought on other fronts of the Great Patriotic War.
                      And this theory is not mine, and not a theory at all. By the winter of 1942/1943. the partisan movement in Crimea was "practically curtailed": http://sevdig.sevastopol.ws/stat/partizan.pdf Partisan warehouses and bases were destroyed in the first two months of the occupation of Crimea. Famine and mass desertion began in the partisan detachments.
                      From order No. 21 of the Commander of the partisan movement of Crimea: "Many detachments that have lost their food bases are in conditions of half-starvation, despite the fact that the products of these detachments were plundered by the local residents ... All district chiefs should take away the food stolen from our bases from the local population and confiscate the property of the traitors to the Motherland ... "
                      From the Report of the Command of the partisan movement of Crimea. 08.01.42/XNUMX/XNUMX: "The head of the 5th district Krasnikov disbanded the Saki partisan detachment in November. The enemy attacked its bases and retreated, thereby losing all its supply bases ... As a result of poor manning of the detachments in the first days, up to 40 percent of the personnel fled, some of who went into the service of the Nazis and hold the posts of headmen, work in the police and other administrative bodies, are used as guides and provocateurs. "
                      Manstein wrote in his memoirs: "The Tatars immediately took our side. They saw in us liberators from the Bolshevik yoke ...", despite the fact that many Crimean Tatars fought in partisan units. Of these, they became heroes: Yusufov, Osmanov, etc.
                      By the end of 1941, the detachments in the defense zone of Sevastopol were in the most difficult situation, where the Germans carried out a major "sweep" of the area. During the first year of fighting, the Crimean partisans lost: 898 people killed, 473 people died of starvation. and the same number of missing persons. By the end of 1942, 6 partisan detachments remained in the Crimea with a total strength of about 600 people, and by the beginning of 1943, no more than 400 people. For comparison: in October 1941, 27 partisan detachments with a total number of about 3,5 thousand people were operating in Crimea, of which there were about 1 thousand people. - the military.
                      The revival of the partisan movement began in the summer of 1943 with active assistance from the mainland. Much has been written about the exploits and victories of the partisans, and my post is already too large.
                2. NOBODY EXCEPT US
                  0
                  19 February 2013 22: 52
                  No, why, remember ...
              2. +1
                19 February 2013 21: 53
                And given that the Ukrainian army will soon be 70 thousand, the issue of the status of Crimea will be resolved quickly.

                given the situation in the Crimea, towards the Turks, through the Tatars ...
        2. NOBODY EXCEPT US
          0
          19 February 2013 22: 51
          And what is the X-58, I am not an expert, and why the strategist did not have this thing on 08.08.08/XNUMX/XNUMX. then probably rodents would not have been knocked out of a slingshot ??? I would like to hear the opinion of an expert and not talkers.
          1. mamba
            +1
            19 February 2013 23: 58
            Quote: NOBODY BUT US
            And what is the X-58, I am not an expert, and why the strategist did not have this thing on 08.08.08/XNUMX/XNUMX. then probably rodents would not have been knocked out of a slingshot ??? I would like to hear the opinion of an expert and not talkers.

            Although I’m not an expert, I’m not a talker either. I advise you to read: http://lasers.org.ru/forum/threads/%D0%92%D0%BE%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B5-%D
            0%BF%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%BC%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B5-%D0%BF%D0%BE%D0%BB%D1
            %83%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%BE%D0%B4%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B2%D1%8B%D1%8
            5-%D0%BB%D0%B0%D0%B7%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B2.3105/
            In clause 3.2. This article will receive the most detailed information about it with pictures, carriers, manufacturers and performance characteristics. Strategists do not fly with her.
        3. 0
          20 February 2013 00: 51
          Handsome, Russian hero in the sky!
    6. +1
      19 February 2013 12: 42
      The article "bold plus", one sentence is worth everything written: Ideally, in the area of ​​the possible appearance of ships of a potential enemy, their ships and multipurpose submarines should be on duty. In addition, it will be necessary to create an anti-aircraft missile “shield” over the area so that ships cannot attack ground targets.
      There were a lot of questions right away. winked
    7. sinedanafin
      0
      19 February 2013 12: 47
      The Russian Navy relies on decent anti-ship and anti-submarine systems.
    8. sinedanafin
      0
      19 February 2013 12: 48
      Dangerous,

      The Russian Navy relies on decent anti-ship and anti-submarine systems.
    9. sinedanafin
      +1
      19 February 2013 12: 51
      Dangerous,
      The Russian Navy relies on anti-submarine and anti-ship systems, which are worthy of attention.
    10. NKVD
      +2
      19 February 2013 13: 30
      All this amerskie show-off is not when the UWB will not fight with Russia openly too darling. With whom they can "fight", we already see Water in the world more than enough of our submarines, too, amers hang around their shores, it infuriates. .. So we continue to "troll" them.
    11. VAF
      VAF
      +1
      19 February 2013 14: 01
      Quote: Dangerous
      and here, except for "Moscow"?


      Samum, Bora, and Mirages, as well as hope for the Su-24 from the Guards, well, and the BPRK in Anapa ... and that's it ... for now!

      And if .. pull up, then the Shaikovsky will fly to the Tu-22M3, if there is no aircraft carrier. then they may ... try! wink
    12. +4
      19 February 2013 14: 54
      Quote: Dangerous
      It was always interesting that the Russian Navy would be able to oppose the Americans on the Black Sea.


      Look at the map, get acquainted with the performance characteristics of modern anti-ship missile weapons and the question will torment you for so long.

      In general, if you were really interested in the Black Sea Fleet of Russia, then you would know that: three diesel Varshavyanks are being built at the Admiralty Shipyards, and three more will be laid as soon as space is available on the slipways; three ships of Project 11356 were laid down, there will also be six in total, the Yantar plant is capable of building them with a pace of at least one unit per year, which was successfully proved under the Indian contract.
    13. +3
      19 February 2013 19: 02
      I don’t know how now, but before (let those who served in the USSR Navy will not let me lie) we were everywhere. And in the Indian (Kamran, Aden), the Mediterranean (Tartus, Split), the Atlantic, and the Pacific. I served in Kamchatka. and we always knew when guests were coming to us. As soon as they get closer than they should be, the ships of the protection of the water area are right there, and under them there is a boat with torpedoes. And so the ships went hiking all the time. Where there is an Amerikosovsky aircraft carrier, there are our destroyers or SKRs and nuclear submarines, our KIKs and spy ships also grazed somewhere near their bases. And so it was. They knew everything about us and we also knew about them. Unfortunately, through the efforts of Gorbachev and Yeltsin, they destroyed everything, and now we will not be able to confront the Americans. Faster, faster!
      1. +1
        20 February 2013 01: 14
        Quote: starshina78
        I don’t know how now, but before


        Quote: starshina78
        Unfortunately, through the efforts of Gorbachev and Yeltsin, everything was destroyed, and now we will not be able to confront the Americans. Faster, faster!


        In our history, this has already happened, we get out.
    14. Quiet
      0
      20 February 2013 17: 36
      "Moskva" alone is capable of SO MUCH firewood that then it will take a very long time to sweep out the chips .... Let us recall the recent. Only one sight of him in the Mediterranean Sea made the American group "By switching on the afterburner, they will rush away from the meeting place" !!!!
  2. 0
    19 February 2013 09: 51
    And why can not we reopen the bases in Cuba and Vietnam?
  3. +4
    19 February 2013 09: 56
    And earlier in the days of the Union, Americans were generally afraid to go into the Black Sea. They began to brave (impudent) only under Gorbachev.
    1. +15
      19 February 2013 10: 27
      Well, the Americans always behaved arrogantly, there were collisions of ships before the Black Sea events. But in the Black Sea they smeared their snot on the face.
      1. Region65
        +2
        20 February 2013 07: 42
        you just don’t need a chicken that wants to seem like a hawk, stick its beak in the bear’s den)))
  4. 0
    19 February 2013 10: 12
    but shouldn't we create a RRT only at sea? what would amers come and we have a "meeting committee" and there it will be visible xy from xy burke and their horns, I think they won't play with cruisers with missile "muscles"
  5. +5
    19 February 2013 10: 15
    but isn’t it easier to develop coastal defense in the Black Sea?
    arrange exercises and firing more often so that they don’t get too much impudent
    there is no way out on other banks, only the fleet
    1. 0
      19 February 2013 10: 18
      Quote: bulvas
      but isn’t it easier to develop coastal defense in the Black Sea?

      And where is the Black Sea Fleet based?
      1. 0
        19 February 2013 10: 20
        And what coastal defense do we have there? A few months ago, the whole news was that even air defense systems were reduced there
        1. +4
          19 February 2013 10: 25
          here it is necessary to deliver RCC as necessary
    2. Misantrop
      +9
      19 February 2013 10: 57
      Quote: bulvas
      but isn’t it easier to develop coastal defense in the Black Sea?

      Ukraine will be delighted - there are so many new opportunities for blackmail on gas ... winked

      Any type of weapon has a bunch of drawbacks, using which you can nullify its presence. What is needed is a BALANCED grouping, not an "open-air museum" of the isolated remnants of the former power, which, unfortunately, we have now ...
  6. +2
    19 February 2013 10: 16
    With the pace of building ships like ours now, the Americans will continue to patrol the seas they want for a long time ... I believe that it is necessary to limit the export of naval products, postpone the armament of Vietnam, Algeria and others, and renew their fleet.
    1. 0
      19 February 2013 10: 20
      Quote: embryo
      postpone armament of Vietnam, Algeria

      I don’t think that they will put them into service with us
    2. 0
      19 February 2013 10: 24
      What kind of shisha? Foreign customers pay live money; our plants live on this. And the Russian defense industry allocated 200 billion for all and for ten years. It’s clear that even by the mythical year 2020, our country will not become a powerful sea power, but at least we will be able to increase its defense capability compared to the current state of affairs.
      1. +2
        19 February 2013 11: 31
        By 2030 will be
        In general, we need to decide what we need a fleet for? For guard! For Americans, he is like a carrier of tomahawks and standards, there are many missiles in one basket. Imagine if a yacht at a speed of 2m gets into the ammunition + I heard in its filling it is programmed to hit not just the ship, but exactly there. Theoretically, our small rocket ship carries more or the same number of missile launchers, and in terms of quality, thanks to the experience of their creation, the USSR ATP is superior. Now target designation satellites are being put into orbit. Russia needs a ship with powerful anti-aircraft missiles and powerful air defense, namely air defense with 400, for example, and not about which ones they actually plan to build. We, unlike the "partners", are not going to move our pro to the state, and we are not going to bomb as they do with tomahawks. It just so happened that people are being led on to the effect, they say, 10 arlie berks is cool .... without an aircraft carrier, all 20 to Peter the Great will not be closer than 300-500 km.
        1. 0
          19 February 2013 12: 54
          Hooray patriot? And so everyone understands that the more powerful the weapons, the better. Nobody knows (fortunately) how many destroyers are needed on Peter. For that matter, Peter and our submarines will not help, since the US has 4 times more multipurpose submarines. The carrier groups in the main are used for amer attacks on land, which in no way means that they will lose the sea battle. They have enough ships without aircraft carriers.
          1. +1
            19 February 2013 15: 11
            Quote: Dangerous
            Hooray patriot?


            cheer alarmist? wassat



            Quote: Dangerous
            The carrier groups in the main are used for amer attacks on land, which in no way means that they will lose the sea battle.


            Where are you actually going to arrange naval battles with the United States?
            And most importantly, how and why?
            Like a small, local war with the United States?
            Well, well laughing , "Ushakov" You are ours.
          2. +7
            19 February 2013 15: 20
            US Navy:
            type "Los Angeles" (Los Angeles) - 42
            type "Sivulf" (Seawolf) - 3
            type "Virginia" (Virginia) - 9
            Total: pl. Without mbr 54 pcs.
            The Americans are not doing so well many ships they write off.
            Russian Navy:
            Nuclear submarines with cruise missiles 8
            Multipurpose nuclear submarines 21
            Nuclear submarines spec. destination 8
            Diesel submarines 20
            + ships under construction
            + modernization in order to expand the range of tasks and increase ammunition.
            Do not forget that on our ships more ammunition is just a pc of torpedoes and missiles.
            I’m not a Hurray patriot, as you put it and I don’t like hat-making show-offs, but I also don’t like it when I invent and distort reality.
            Quote:
            "If it comes to that, then Peter and our nuclear submarines will not help, since the United States has 4 times more multipurpose submarines."
            Read carefully koment, I will clarify acted without an aircraft carrier. since in naval battleship naval aviation has an advantage against the NK!

            With respect.
            1. -5
              19 February 2013 15: 39
              Data from the official website of the mine of defense?)))
              1. +2
                19 February 2013 15: 51
                Data from Wikipedia. And if this is sarcasm, then excuse me where did you get the data on 4-fold superiority in the number of multi-purpose apl USA?
            2. +2
              19 February 2013 21: 45
              Sergei. Do not forget to add to the Yankees the ships of NATO countries (for example, Canada built 90 Halifax frigates adapted for operations in the Arctic and having a long autonomous voyage in the 12s) and Japan. I will add my thoughts:
              1.During the war with Iraq in the Persian Gulf on the outdated mines, the Princeton missile cruiser and the tripoli helicopter carrier Tripoli were blown up. Both suffered very serious injuries. I think that Iran has a much more advanced mine weapon in service, including homing, self-transporting and self-loading in silt mines, which can be equipped with combined, original fuses. Such mines are quite dangerous and can disrupt naval operations of various kinds. The Germans spoiled a lot of blood during the Second World War in the Baltic - despite almost continuous trawling in the Baltic Sea in 1945-1946, almost 430 ships and boats were blown up by mines. Of these, more than half, immediately went to the bottom, ..
              We, I think, have something in the "bins". Considering that the United States has ~ 15 obsolete minesweepers (which can be purposefully covered), then it is clear.
              2.During the Second World War, civilian ships were successfully converted. Today, does the presence of at least a container missile system Club-K suggest the construction of civilian ships, taking into account their use as a "dual-use" (for the future)?
              3. On ships of new construction, but also on old cruisers, it is necessary to put S-400s in order to shoot down planes before they launch anti-ship missiles. Therefore, it is necessary to urgently introduce "Orlans" with their powerful anti-aircraft and strike complexes.
              4. To increase the power of naval aviation and land-based anti-ship means. In the USSR, all this was on par.
              Well, and more PLO ships (BOD, frigates). A couple of Mistrals (of 4) will look good on the Black Sea, with a perspective on the Mediterranean.
              With regard to sales and upgrades, this is both the shipbuilding experience and personnel .and currency.
              The combat duty (in the sense of constant monitoring) is also pleasing, which is also a deterrent.
              1. +1
                19 February 2013 22: 37
                On ships of new construction, but also on old cruisers, it is necessary to put S-400s in order to shoot down planes before they launch anti-ship missiles. Therefore, it is necessary to urgently introduce "Orlans" with their powerful anti-aircraft and strike systems.

                My thoughts are expressed.
      2. djon3volta
        +2
        19 February 2013 13: 43
        Quote: Dangerous
        And the Russian defense industry allocated 200 billion for all and for ten years.

        200 billion of what, I want to ask? But in general, you're lying and do not blush! Until 2020, 20 trillion rubles have been allocated for rearmament! This is $ 100 billion a year!
        1. 0
          19 February 2013 15: 42
          And I think that my ear is on all day?))) No matter how many, firstly everyone understands that this is enough to fill holes, secondly, the number of submarines has already been reduced from 10/10 to 8/7, and the prices are now sky-high, at least take the price of submarines, even the president had to intervene in this situation
          1. +3
            19 February 2013 15: 53
            Are you talking about Ash and Boreas? The media write about 10 of the one and the other, but I trust Putin more, he speaks about 8 units. spoke
            1. +1
              19 February 2013 16: 35
              Boreas are registered as START-3
              But ash trees are likely to be more
    3. +1
      19 February 2013 18: 27
      How then to increase production capacity, hone technology, improve weapons? At the expense of whom?
  7. +2
    19 February 2013 11: 55
    In the Black Sea, in general, it would be desirable to put a low-budget and effective installation for the artificial creation of a "standing wave" all over the sea in order to quickly and point-wise dare impudent guests
  8. Law
    Law
    0
    19 February 2013 14: 43
    As the Soviet fleet of Americans in Sevastopol prescribed watching the video took pride in our sailors, I hope that now there are ships in the ranks ready to adequately respond to the enemy!
  9. smprofi
    +3
    19 February 2013 14: 47
    Their campaigns can sometimes be a threat to our country. - under the current regime in the Kremlin? do not make laugh and puff out your cheeks in the heat of pseudo-patriotism! We will not mention the calls of US warships (and not only) to Vladivostok and Murmansk.
    But who needs wallpaper, please:



    The large anti-submarine ship Marshal Shaposhnikov enters the Pearl Harbor base. but not on a friendly visit, but to take part in joint exercises.
  10. +4
    19 February 2013 15: 06
    Tap! Bosphorus mine!
    1. +7
      19 February 2013 15: 26
      Quote: Alexey M
      Bosphorus mine!


      What for? The Black Sea in a military aspect is a big puddle and it makes no sense to fill it with surface ships and submarines. All that is really necessary has already been planned for commissioning and is being built.
      In general, look at this topic in the history of the Black Sea operations during the Second World War - the era of squadron grandiose battles in the Black Sea has already passed.
  11. Alikovo
    +1
    19 February 2013 15: 41
    need to increase the number of BOD and watchdogs
    1. +5
      19 February 2013 17: 19
      Quote: Alikovo
      need to increase the number of BOD and watchdogs


      already under construction and for the Black Sea Fleet.

      - 2010 December 18 - at the shipyard "Yantar" laid the head ICR "Admiral Grigorovich" pr.11356M.
      - 2011 July 8 - at the Yantar shipyard laid down the second ship of the contract - the SCR "Admiral Essen" pr.11356M.
      - 2012 February 29 - the media reported on plans to deliver to the Russian Navy by 2016 6 TFR pr.11356. The third ship for the Russian Navy, Admiral Makarov, was laid down at the Yantar shipyard.

      Six such beauties will be in the Russian Black Sea Fleet:



      Frigate pr.11356 INS Tarkash on sea trials, 22.07.2012



      Frigate pr.11356 Indian Navy. Pictured is INS Teg or the first series ship for the Indian Navy.
      1. mamba
        +2
        19 February 2013 22: 02
        Great photo. It can be added that according to Project 11356, 6 ships were built for the Indian Navy: three ships each at the Baltic Shipyard (St. Petersburg) and at the Yantar Shipyard (Kaliningrad).
        Condition of ships of the project 11356R / M under construction for the Russian Navy:
        - "Admiral Grigorovich". Launching - in 2013. Commissioning to the side - at the end of 2014. The hull is formed. Rolled out of the boathouse. Preparing for the descent;
        - "Admiral Essen". Putting into operation - in 2014. The building is being formed. Formed bow block (Pumped out of the boathouse). The rear of the hull is formed in a closed boathouse;
        - "Admiral Makarov". Commissioning to the store - in 2014 Laid down. Under construction.
        - "Admiral Butakov". Commissioning in the store - in 2015-2016. The bottom section is made. Not laid down. The bookmark has been postponed indefinitely, possibly until the end of the current year;
        - "Admiral Istomin". Bookmark date - 2013 (plan). Commissioning in the store - in 2015-2016. Contract signed;
        - "Admiral Kornilov". Bookmark date - 2013 (plan). Commissioning in the store - in 2015-2016. Contract signed.
  12. +1
    19 February 2013 18: 25
    In the Black Sea, it only makes sense to build your base for the fleet. Then it will be possible to think about how to arm it. As long as ours are huddled in Sevastopol, there are no show-offs.
    1. +2
      19 February 2013 19: 04
      Quote: Geisenberg
      In the Black Sea, it only makes sense to build your base for the fleet.


      The Black Sea already has its own base.


      Quote: Geisenberg
      As long as ours are huddled in Sevastopol, there are no pontoons.


      Huddles there mostly disappearing from the face of the earth or sea what , The Black Sea Fleet of Ukraine, and everything is in order with our fleets soldier .
      I got into the location of the Ukrainian fleet through a hole in the fence, wandering around looking at everything for almost an hour and a half until I ran into an alert military man who asked what I was doing there.
      The dream - to unscrew something as a souvenir from "Hetman Sagaidachny" failed to come true crying although the watchman himself saw.
      All attempts to get into the location of our fleet failed.
  13. kukuruzo
    0
    19 February 2013 20: 44
    oh how the article title expresses
  14. 0
    20 February 2013 13: 00
    The fact that the defense potential of Russia is below the plinth, we must "thank" the Gorbi, Yeltsin and the reformers-shit ... krats. Which, for the sake of NATO, for some reason, unilaterally, while still taking the "perfect plans" for disarmament, fulfilled "excellently"! Sorry, the industry has been stolen, but now the country lacks planes, steamers, etc. etc. And they place military orders in countries hostile to Russia, you can see a lesson with a gas pipeline, in the management of which the program for an accident was laid, did not teach anything, or there are only TRAITORS in the government! ...