Military Review

Ocean Fleet becomes a dream

43
Today, defense order reform for the navy is already a necessity


The weekly "Military Industrial Complex" constantly addresses the topic of building the modern Navy. A number of experts state the lack of combat experience (we are not talking about the combat service of SSBNs), an insufficient level of training — seafarers, support personnel, scientists, inconsistency of doctrinal documents with actual challenges, imbalance of combat personnel, lack of infrastructure, lack of auxiliary vessels and mine-sweeping forces. A lot of problems in industry. We publish proposals for the modernization of the development and acquisition of naval weapons and military equipment.

Building an ocean fleet - such an appeal is increasingly not only heard in the ranks of enthusiasts, but is also declared in the statements of high officials of the Ministry of Defense. Without questioning the need for a full-fledged strong Navy, we add that such projects are always associated with a number of difficulties. Leaving aside purely economic and political aspects, let us pay special attention to the need to develop modern ship designs, both fundamentally new, in particular aircraft carriers, and those designed to replace obsolete ones. This process, which is already long and often fraught with a multitude of problems, seems to be very difficult today.

Shipbuilding cycle

There are a lot of problems associated with excessive entanglement and inconsistency in the field of shipbuilding: in the 2005 year, after the introduction of the federal law No. 94-FZ, which created a competitive system for developing weapons, the experts talked about the destruction of the developed approach over the years. The reforms of recent years have only aggravated the situation. Let us examine the situation in order, and you need to start from the beginning.

Ocean Fleet becomes a dream

In the USSR, at one time there was a stable and proven system, which rather by inertia passed to Russia. The main body of the research activity was the Scientific and Technical Committee (STC) of the Navy, which initialized the relevant process by developing and agreeing on the requirements and assumed TTH of the prospective naval unit (ship). In the form of a task, these requirements were transferred directly to the design bureau (design bureau), which, at a certain time (usually it was a year and a half), analyzed and corrected the draft technical specification (TZ) in accordance with the requirements of production and the conditions of future operation.

Taking into account all the comments and improvements, the project was returned to the NTK and approved there. The definition of the series also took place, and then the design bureau began creating all the necessary documentation. After its approval, the finally formed terms of reference were sent to the shipyard most suitable for the construction of the ordered type of ships. Total the whole cycle took from three to five years. Such an organization, of course, is an exemplarily debugged and optimized mechanism that works clearly and without unnecessary movements. This is the result of many years of work by specialists, supervisors and management fleet, including the highest. The constant interest of the Soviet Ministry of Defense in the scientific and technical component of the Armed Forces is also noteworthy.

In captivity of controversy

The collapse of the USSR changed everything. Despite the fact that the system was formally the same (NTK in the year 1992 was transformed into the Marine Scientific Committee, at the same time losing some of its functions), doubts arose as to its relevance in the new Russia. This system was ideal for the former country, whose command economy allowed it to allocate as many resources as needed.

The declared transition to the market required new solutions. However, up to 2005, this area remained out of the attention of reformers, obviously, due to low demand. Priority in the allocation of funds belonged to other, more topical areas. In this regard, the adoption of federal law number 94-FZ thoroughly shook up the stagnant defense industry.

Prior to this, each defense enterprise with a specific specialization could count on priority over the rest of the industry’s plants when ordering products according to their profile. The law, however, introduced a competitive system, in which the contractor is selected by a special commission during a kind of auction. This decision turned out to be completely inappropriate for the Soviet / Russian defense industry, still working in the command-administrative paradigm.

It should be noted that the competitive system is designed for the Western model, where usually there are several competing manufacturing companies. weapons with similar characteristics. The domestic model, although it involves creative competition between design bureaus, leads to a clear separation of types and classes of products between certain enterprises. In other words - each plant is sharpened for a very specific product and, as a rule, is a monopolist enterprise in its field. This feature has played a cruel joke on our defense industry after the collapse of the USSR, when many of the critical production turned out to be abroad. And of course, the auction proposed by the law number 94, in such circumstances is inappropriate, but it gives rich ground for price markups. Nevertheless, it must be admitted that this was the first step towards a thorough restructuring of the entire system under modern realities, which gave an impetus to abandon one of the main scourges of the Soviet economy - monopolization. The next step in the restructuring of the defense industry was military reform.

The main disadvantages

The apologists of imparting a new look to the Armed Forces, in their striving to reduce and reorganize, decidedly all caused considerable damage to the ship design system. Initially, probably, the goal was to modernize and adapt the Armed Forces and the military construction system to new economic conditions — something that really became a pressing need. However, the subsequent implementation has caused many questions and manifestations of discontent. In addition, the authors of the reforms in relation to the fleet created a new concept of building the Navy with an eye on Western countries, especially the United States. In Russian reality, not all got accustomed.

First, with the new fleet management scheme, a significant part of the functions, including the control of military research institutes, were taken from the Glavkomat. Research institutes were transferred to the Department of Military Education. Accordingly, the consideration of the projects created by the ships fell on the shoulders of the head of the department - a civilian and completely irrelevant to the fleet. With all this, the leadership of the Civil Code of the Navy does not have any right to interfere in the process of developing ships.

Secondly, significant reductions do not allow the Main Command of the Armed Forces of the Armed Forces to perform well even the few functions that it still has, including coordination and coordination of shipbuilding works. Well, that "trusted" at least it.

Thirdly, the result of the reshuffle in the General Staff became confusion and chaos, especially in the early stages. Even at the moment when reform movements have subsided, it is not easy to recreate a clearly structured scheme of the development and creation of weapons and military equipment. To explain the nature of the processes in this area it is necessary to consider the issue more broadly.

Management levels

In any process taking place in the military sphere, two levels intersect - political and military-administrative. It is only in their interaction that a beneficial action is born, but to achieve such conditions is not easy: each side has its own organizational patterns of functional behavior, which should be correlated with each other both in phases and in content.

The political level of the formation of the state defense order (GOZ) is located on the site of the presidential administration, the government and the State Duma. Usually, it is these actors who take the initiative: in accordance with the current situation in the world, a political task is set, the format of actions is set and timelines and resources are determined. These conditions and restrictions, formalized in official documents (orders, decrees), are sent to the military authorities (OVU), which at the highest level are represented by the General Staff.

The task of the SIA is the development of specific solutions for the implementation of the resulting installations (goals) within the allocated resources and time limit in collaboration with involved or designated management and scientific structures. As a result of this work, the concept of the GOZ project itself is formulated and the case is submitted to the research authorities, that is, the notorious NTK. In the course of research, research institutes and design bureaus dispose of funds allocated by the political leadership deployed in the budget and the State Armaments Program.

However, at this stage problems always arise. For many reasons, starting with an inaccurate calculation of resources in the issuance of TK and other tasks and ending with trivial inflation and corruption, the funds allocated are usually not enough. Resources are also required for technical and personnel renewal, without which it is impossible to create modern competitive products.

The economic units oppose the use of resources in excess of what they are supposed to, and the military-administrative level has no real levers of pressure on them and, as a result, is also forced to get involved in a political game. Due to the strong fragmentation of the domestic defense industry among individual enterprises, fierce competition arises for the amount of resources allocated, especially given their extreme limitations. If, as it would have been possible under the USSR, with a willful decision to transfer all resources to the fleet, then the rest of the industry will inevitably be in crisis.

This area requires a special approach: the main resource becomes the influence, interest in the industry of the country's top leadership, which translates into inevitable lobbying of shipbuilding interests. Not having the opportunity to directly rise to the highest political level, the defense industry complex uses other channels: public opinion, political parties, concrete work with officials, communications and direct influence on top officials of the state. For example, yesterday the Deputy Prime Minister visited the Severodvinsk plants, today the president visited Severomorsk, and as a result the industry receives additional cash infusions and the opportunity to continue working. However, there is a reverse interaction. By investing, the authorities are waiting for the result and, in turn, are “pulling” the industry, often not understanding the features of the shipbuilding process: the political cycles are much shorter than the real cycles of creating and operating weapons and military equipment.

As a result, this translates into a closed economic circle, devouring resources and, even more valuable, time. This is where the “legs grow” and another problem - the exorbitant price increases of the defense industry enterprises. The administrative level does not have the ability to intervene and “ruin” the process for the reasons mentioned earlier: due to the lack of authority and incompetence of the decision makers who have such capabilities. The overall picture is not the most encouraging: the necessary interaction is carried out only partially, as a rule, each participant in the process pulls the blanket over himself, trying to get the most immediate benefit. Politicians report on the fulfillment of the defense order and intimidate the external adversary, economists save money, and the Navy Group of Companies support the fleet afloat and develop development plans along the way. The enterprises of the defense industrial complex are forced to spend a lot of forces and resources to compete and attract patrons.

Ways of solution

Yes, the reader will forgive the given political science excursion, but the measure is forced. Without consideration of global processes it is difficult to understand the nature of concrete phenomena. Modern production of weapons and military equipment torn to pieces and disorganized. Can I get her out of the pit? The new Minister of Defense, judging by his statements, intends to continue work on reforming this area.

The first step will be to return to the Navy DFG dismissed or retired experienced officers. This measure will allow the Main Commissariat to better fulfill its functions. Perhaps the step will be the groundwork for the return of the previous powers to the Civil Code.

The next step could be the abolition of a number of decisions in the field of military education. This would mean the return of research activities under the supervision of specialists. Thus, it is possible to rely at least on the return of the status quo. It is impossible to unequivocally call the last initiative a positive one, since, we recall, the existing system needs to be processed. Nevertheless, you can count on more or less stable work.

Is it possible to upgrade the defense order system? In the USA, for example, there is a special Naval Shipbuilding and Armament Administration (NAVSEA) of the Navy, directly responsible for this issue. Our Defense Ministry is also promised a similar structure that controls the entire production cycle of weapons and military equipment. However, most likely, this problem will not solve the considered problems.

There are many other factors that inhibit and limit the work of the shipbuilding industry. Among them is an unprecedented reduction in the institution of military acceptance, bordering on complete liquidation, a lack of understanding between the customer and contractors, a lot of specific economic problems for our country, and most importantly a lack of understanding of what to build and why. Let us repeat once again a simple truth: without a vector of motion, without a clear doctrine, the fleet will never come anywhere. And any, the most fundamentally new and technologically advanced aircraft carrier, even when accompanied by nuclear destroyers, will be nothing more than a toy. And the transformations with the most reasonable and prudent leadership are senseless and disorienting.
Author:
43 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Krasnoyarsk
    Krasnoyarsk 20 March 2013 15: 46 New
    12
    What Boris Sorokagradusny did to the fleet is not excusable, what only the “Sarychs” are, and now our fleet is forced to resurrect the remains of the Soviet Navy.
    1. baltika-18
      baltika-18 20 March 2013 15: 57 New
      +4
      Quote: Krasnoyarets
      Boris Sorokagradusny with

      Once mentioned.
      I read a lot of articles on reforms in the army, aviation, navy. They all agree on one thing, and huge damage has been done to defense.
      Question: we have that in fact, no one will ever answer for this?
      It is interesting to hear the opinion of members of the forum.
      1. Armata
        Armata 20 March 2013 16: 03 New
        +8
        Quote: baltika-18
        I read a lot of articles on reforms in the army, aviation, navy. They all agree on one thing, and huge damage has been done to defense.
        Question: we have that in fact, no one will ever answer for this?
        It is interesting to hear the opinion of members of the forum.
        Greetings, Nikolay. Watching what you would like to hear about. The armor’s tank policy is now that everyone gave the beloved UVZ a favorite, it had a bad effect on promising developments, at the moment two different design schools are working offensively. If in shipbuilding, then the problems are in the destruction of cooperation and the liquidation of satellite enterprises (roughly speaking, they want to build but cannot)
        1. baltika-18
          baltika-18 20 March 2013 16: 22 New
          +3
          Quote: Mechanic
          The armor’s tank policy is such that everyone gave the beloved to UVZ’s GDP,

          Definitely, Eugene. This threatens not only the loss of promising developments, but also an elementary bankruptcy ........ maybe.
        2. Tersky
          Tersky 20 March 2013 16: 24 New
          +8
          Quote: Mechanic
          If in shipbuilding, then the problems are in the destruction of cooperation and the liquidation of satellite enterprises (roughly speaking, they want to build but cannot)

          Zhenya, hi ! just quote
          In February 2011, then-Deputy Defense Minister Vladimir Popovkin told the press that by 2020, the military should buy for the Navy one hundred surface and submarine ships. In particular, the list of purchases will include 20 submarines, 35 corvettes and 15 frigates, reports Tape Ru.


          Russian Navy until the end of the 2020 year will get 78 surface and submarine ships, said Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu. According to him, as part of the state program fleet should receive eight strategic nuclear submarines, 16 multipurpose submarines and 54 surface ships various classes, RIA Novosti reports.
          what belay Probably problems with mathematics .... Or, to promise does not mean getting married ...
          1. Armata
            Armata 20 March 2013 16: 32 New
            +5
            Hi Vitya. Well, these his words just drove on. There were always enough storytellers in our country, with interest.
      2. Garrin
        Garrin 20 March 2013 16: 04 New
        +5
        Quote: baltika-18
        Question: we have that in fact, no one will ever answer for this?

        With the existing system - NO!
      3. Krasnoyarsk
        Krasnoyarsk 20 March 2013 16: 06 New
        +1
        Yeltsin and the team did a lot for Putin to come to power, created the image of a savior.
      4. edge
        edge 21 March 2013 03: 34 New
        +1
        the loyal apologists of the Americans have done their job ....... now they just have to quietly slip away and live happily like an ugly bear
    2. Civil
      Civil 20 March 2013 20: 25 New
      +1
      Enough is enough

      1. An understanding has come that it is impossible to continue without a fleet.
      2. The fleet is old.
      3. The United States and its allies have no money and never will have money for the fleet.
      4. Shipbuilding with snowfields do not pull.

      5. Something must be decided.
      1. Papakiko
        Papakiko 20 March 2013 22: 42 New
        0
        Quote: Civil
        Something must be decided.

        And decided, look here:

        http://www.otvprim.ru/news30232.html

        http://sdelanounas.ru/blogs/25553/

        And better look at this resource:

        http://sdelanounas.ru/blogs/?id=106&page=3

        Most of it is really made and remodeled. good
  2. Armata
    Armata 20 March 2013 15: 48 New
    +1
    Article plus. The author opened and correctly laid out everything on the shelves.
  3. zavesa01
    zavesa01 20 March 2013 15: 53 New
    +5
    Russia has only two allies - the army and navy.

    Alexander III Peacemaker (if that)
    1. Vadivak
      Vadivak 20 March 2013 16: 36 New
      +7
      Quote: zavesa01
      Russia has only two allies - the army and navy.


      And two troubles fools and roads, let's see who
      1. freedom
        freedom 20 March 2013 22: 31 New
        +1
        According to many indicators, fools are winning so far. But the funny thing is that they (read the people) hold us for fools.
      2. Uncle lee
        Uncle lee 21 March 2013 07: 47 New
        +7
        Especially when the first build the second fellow
  4. qwert
    qwert 20 March 2013 16: 01 New
    +1
    Restore the main nuclear submarine fleet. Although it is not suitable for the demonstration of the flag, it stops the Suostat by its very presence. And in the USSR there was a powerful aviation of the Navy.
  5. horoh
    horoh 20 March 2013 16: 06 New
    +1
    Sooner or later, they will still be responsible for the collapse of the country's defense capability (some of them feel unsinkable, I hope temporarily).
  6. shurup
    shurup 20 March 2013 16: 09 New
    +2
    The number of eagles on epaulettes of admirals is directly proportional to the number of ships of the Navy. Admirals have something to dream about.
    The profit of the USC is directly proportional to the number of admirals of the Navy. USC has something to dream about.
    The fullness of the wallets of citizens of the Russian Federation is inversely proportional to the dreams of admirals and USC.
    Therefore, it is impossible to give the decision on the ocean fleet into the hands of admirals and USC.
    First you need to change the Duma, or maybe something else.
  7. Army1
    Army1 20 March 2013 16: 20 New
    +3
    The fleet (strategic and general purpose) included more than 100 squadrons and divisions, and the total number of personnel of the USSR Navy was about 450 [000] (including 4 thousand in the marine corps) [12,6]. Expenditures on the USSR Navy in 5 amounted to 1989 billion rubles (with a total military budget of 12,08 billion rubles), of which 77,294 million rubles for the purchase of ships and boats and 2993 million for technical equipment) [6531]. In the combat formation of the fleet there were 5 surface ships of the ocean and the far sea zone, 160 strategic nuclear submarines of the second generation, 83 multipurpose nuclear submarines and 113 diesel-electric [254].

    A. S. Pavlov provides the following data on the composition of the USSR Navy at the end of the 1980-s: 64 nuclear and 15 diesel submarines with ballistic missiles [6], 79 submarines with cruise missiles (including 63 nuclear) [7], 80 multipurpose nuclear torpedo submarines [8] (all submarine data for 1 January 1989 years), four aircraft carriers, 96 cruisers, destroyers and missile frigates, 174 patrol and small anti-submarine ships, 623 boats and minesweepers, 107 . Total 1380 warships (not counting auxiliary ships), 1142 warships (all data on surface ships on July 1 1988 of the year) [5].

    In 1991, shipbuilding enterprises of the USSR built: two aircraft carriers (including one nuclear), 11 nuclear submarines with ballistic missiles, 18 multi-purpose nuclear submarines, seven diesel submarines, two missile cruisers (including one nuclear), 10 destroyers and large anti-submarine ships, etc. [9]
    TO DIE THIS WITH A SPOT ON THE Brow.
    Good luck to the new leadership to return Russia status as in the USSR.
    1. Krasnoyarsk
      Krasnoyarsk 20 March 2013 17: 09 New
      -3
      At least a third of the USSR Navy is outdated by the 90s.
    2. nickname 1 and 2
      nickname 1 and 2 20 March 2013 22: 25 New
      -1
      Let me doubt it? Well, how many years have they been built? Where are those shipyards? Natural aging, again.
      Or is it all that was for all 70 years. ???
  8. Black
    Black 20 March 2013 16: 56 New
    0
    Quote: baltika-18
    Question: we have that in fact, no one will ever answer for this?

    Will answer. But the answer will be asymmetric, as always. Or one of two!
  9. amp
    amp 20 March 2013 17: 38 New
    +3
    Before you create an ocean fleet, you need to determine what tasks it will solve. The Russian Federation is a land power that the ocean fleet simply does not need. Stalin at one time understood this and created mainly submarines and boats to protect the coast and was a thousand times right.

    And we have everything as with the Mistrals: first, let's buy, and then we will come up with tasks for them.
    What tasks will the ocean fleet solve? Especially aircraft carriers?
    I personally see one full-fledged task for the Russian ocean fleet - projecting forces in the Persian Gulf. Here, yes, a powerful fleet would keep the west, especially the United States by the throat. However, taking into account our friendly relations with Iran, it is much more profitable and easier to agree with Iran on a military base in the region. Ground-based aviation and surface-to-surface missiles would solve this problem a hundred times better and a hundred times cheaper. It does not even need any sea transportation as a base in Syria, since Russia is connected to Iran by the Caspian Lake.

    In general, the question is simple: what specific tasks will the ocean fleet solve?
    1. Nagaibak
      Nagaibak 20 March 2013 18: 09 New
      +6
      amp "Stalin at one time understood this and created mainly submarines and boats to protect the coast and was a thousand times right."
      Stalin was for a large fleet. Under him, cruisers were built and the laying of battleships was planned.
      For the mosquito fleet was Tukhachevsky. And Khrushchev cut the boats.
      In general, to say that Russia does not need an ocean fleet is a fool.
      Peter 1 said who has an army has one arm. And whoever has a fleet and an army has two hands. Not literally, but something like that. Man lived hehe in the 18th century and understood the need for a fleet for Russia.
      1. amp
        amp 20 March 2013 18: 28 New
        +3
        So I’m not against the fleet, I just don’t understand what tasks the fleet will solve thousands of kilometers from the Russian coast. Stalin might have wanted an ocean fleet, but he had other priorities and battleships with aircraft carriers not in the first or even second place.

        In general, I believe that it is necessary to resume construction and develop ekranoplans. For example, the Lun ekranoplan - projective range of up to 2000 km, speed up to 500 km \ h, seaworthiness of 4 -6 points, weapons - 6 mosquitoes.
        Even such a thing made in the 80s would make the Japanese shut up once and for all. And what's the use of aircraft carriers to protect the Far East, if land-based aviation can cope 100 times better? What is an aircraft carrier for the Russian Federation? An expensive toy?
        1. Army1
          Army1 20 March 2013 18: 44 New
          0
          Quote: amp
          What is an aircraft carrier for the Russian Federation? An expensive toy?

          It would be less stolen, ridiculous, for Russia, an expensive floating airfield.
          1. amp
            amp 20 March 2013 19: 02 New
            0
            What tasks will this floating airfield do?
          2. NOBODY EXCEPT US
            NOBODY EXCEPT US 20 March 2013 19: 31 New
            0
            If ALL stolen grandmas were to be returned, then it would be possible, if not all of the half of the Pacific Ocean, to be dotted with ....
          3. igor.borov775
            igor.borov775 21 March 2013 03: 30 New
            0
            Yes, the larger the ship and the higher the cost of its maintenance, Accordingly, the larger the more weapons it carries, Why do we need a fleet, Only now, at the very top, there’s no fleet, sit outside your state’s border and don’t tweet, Even now it’s hard to shift something we have, There are so many problems that even here on the site you can see, To create a small connection of a warship and it brings a lot of problems, I mean the Mediterranean Sea, but it’s more important only now it has become clear that we are being pushed out slowly and from all areas where there are ours interests and trading, and many others. We also lose the opportunity to load our enterprises with profitable orders, while the state also loses its investments, like loans. The ability to find other profitable projects
          4. igor.borov775
            igor.borov775 21 March 2013 03: 32 New
            0
            And the fleet as a type of aircraft can seriously help our policy simply by demonstrating
        2. NOBODY EXCEPT US
          NOBODY EXCEPT US 20 March 2013 19: 29 New
          +1
          And who said that an aircraft jack is needed for defense? It is needed to demonstrate intentions, it is a piece of native land off the coast of other countries, an airfield in general ......... If we have a defensive doctrine, then we don’t need an air mat .... Depending on what goals we set on the world stage ....
          1. Alekseev
            Alekseev 20 March 2013 19: 49 New
            +2
            Aviamatka, eroplan still write. lol
            Using century-old terms, you will never understand why an aircraft carrier is needed and what doctrine is on the world, of course, arena. winked
      2. igor.borov775
        igor.borov775 21 March 2013 03: 07 New
        0
        Then, simply at the UN level, we will be deprived of the shelf and cuckoo, the Navy is the long arm of the state, even aviation can not help everywhere
    2. Army1
      Army1 20 March 2013 18: 40 New
      0
      Quote: amp
      The Russian Federation is a land power that the ocean fleet simply does not need.

      Another connoisseur, you read the story. I’m not even going to breed educational program, to spend my nerves.
      1. amp
        amp 20 March 2013 18: 47 New
        0
        Well, history and geography, I know better than you for sure.
        The Russian fleet was created 300 years ago by Peter 1. Prior to this, there was not even access to the sea (not counting Arkhangelsk). The Russian fleet did not play a decisive role in any war that Russia waged. Even in the Russian - Japanese war, everything was decided on land, in Manchuria, and not at all at sea. Not a single major battle in World War I, not a single major battle in World War II. Russia is a classic land power. So before reading an educational program, at least read a textbook on the history of Russia.
        1. Nagaibak
          Nagaibak 20 March 2013 20: 09 New
          +2
          amp "Before that, there was not even access to the sea (not counting Arkhangelsk). The Russian fleet did not play a decisive role in any war that Russia waged."
          You have such categorical opinions. I will correct you a little. The Swedes sat down at the negotiating table, largely due to the fact that Cossack patrols began to appear in the vicinity of Stockholm. Gangut, Grengram. Second, the Russian-Turkish war, I think there is no need to explain about the role of the fleet. Chesma, Kaliakria, Sinop.
          Another thing is the Russo-Japanese War, the First World War. And the Great Patriotic War, our fleet did not play the role that was expected of him. But the Germans were not allowed to go to St. Petersburg by sea either in 1914-1917, or in 1941-1945. Aviation appeared again.
          1. amp
            amp 20 March 2013 22: 29 New
            -4
            Yes, I did not take into account the Northern War.
            As for the Russian - Turkish wars, the fleet played a minor role here.
        2. edge
          edge 21 March 2013 04: 02 New
          +1
          Quote: amp
          not a single major battle in the second world war. Russia is a classic land power. So before you conduct an educational program, at least read a textbook on the history of Russia
          .... and then how
          In a way, the liberation of Sevastopol and the Black Sea coast was carried out, and where to record the Kuril-Sakhalin operation?
          1. Sharingan
            Sharingan 21 March 2013 12: 22 New
            -1
            Quote: hert
            Quote: amp
            not a single major battle in the second world war. Russia is a classic land power. So before you conduct an educational program, at least read a textbook on the history of Russia
            .... and then how
            In a way, the liberation of Sevastopol and the Black Sea coast was carried out, and where to record the Kuril-Sakhalin operation?


            Does it need an ocean fleet? wink

            And even now, the economic situation in Russia is not enough to threaten the ocean fleet. Now we need to “play” from the defense: close holes in the Far East, the Black Sea, recreate the Mediterranean squadron, and build a powerful submarine fleet.
    3. NOBODY EXCEPT US
      NOBODY EXCEPT US 20 March 2013 19: 24 New
      -1
      I can answer you honestly ..... And hell knows .......
  10. BIGLESHIY
    BIGLESHIY 20 March 2013 18: 16 New
    +1
    Photo of the times of the Iraq-Iranian War Persian Gulf. I had such a photo only from a different angle, and in front of me, in my opinion, TAKR "Kiev".
    1. Memorandum
      Memorandum 20 March 2013 18: 49 New
      0
      And in my opinion here, "Peter the Great" with the number 099 is shown ... fresh photo
      1. BIGLESHIY
        BIGLESHIY 21 March 2013 07: 06 New
        0
        No old photo! I give my head to the cut-off, my brother on a ship in the cabin hung a year of commercials in 87-88.
  11. yurypetrunin
    yurypetrunin 20 March 2013 18: 42 New
    +3
    Fifth generation boats planned for 2050?
    Is the ocean fleet becoming a dream?
    Is our military potential not enough for the multiple destruction of any potential enemy? Or for causing him unacceptable damage? Or for containment?
    The implementation of these plans for many years will provide interested parties with huge budget funding, and posts, and other preferences ... And new furniture makers on this basis will certainly appear!
    And in 2050 I will be (will there be?) 105 years!
    And everyone has already decided for me, and for my children, for my grandchildren and great-grandchildren!
    And will they be grateful to us for this?
    The present and the next generation will definitely not see these cranes in the sky, and a tit in their hands can die completely.
    Yuri Petrunin. Polar, Gatchina. Veteran of the Armed Forces of the USSR.
  12. MY THOUGHT
    MY THOUGHT 20 March 2013 21: 25 New
    0
    I don’t understand well in maritime affairs, but mine needs to collect from all fleets a powerful combat-ready flotilla equipped with the most modern ships possible with the possibility of oceanic operations, based on the Northern Fleet, for which it won’t be a shame !. Distribute the rest to the rest of the fleet! (Well, do not touch the Black Sea especially), Bring the fighting efficiency of this flotilla to a miraculous level, and build a powerful fleet based on this grouping !!!!!!!!!! am ????????????
    1. edge
      edge 21 March 2013 04: 07 New
      0
      Quote: MY THOUGHT

      offline
      MY THOUGHT Yesterday, 21:25
      - 0 +
      I don’t understand well in maritime affairs, but mine needs to collect from all fleets a powerful combat-ready flotilla equipped with the most modern ships possible with the possibility of oceanic operations, based on the Northern Fleet, for which it won’t be a shame !. Distribute the rest to the rest of the fleet! (Well, do not touch the Black Sea especially), Bring the fighting efficiency of this flotilla to a miraculous level, and build a powerful fleet based on this grouping !!!!!!!!!!
      and send you as a sailor for about 10 years, otherwise there will be no other types of troops hi
  13. common man
    common man 20 March 2013 22: 28 New
    +2
    I think, first of all, it is necessary to perfect the self-defense force, the mosquito fleet, and the nuclear forces, SSBNs. And then talk about the normal ocean fleet. I understand that I want to have aircraft carriers. I also want to. But what's the use of them? We will build two nuclear aircraft carriers, create two AUG based on them. They will "project intentions" somewhere in the Mediterranean Sea or the Indian Ocean, in peacetime. But what can they do in the event of a real war far from their shores? Against 10 U.S. aircraft carriers and hundreds of U.S. bases around the world? We honestly admit that our aircraft carriers live a day, a maximum of two. In order to show off, one must have a fleet adequate to the American one. And this is unattainable at this stage. So far we have fewer destroyers than their aircraft carriers. Let's be realistic.
    1. edge
      edge 21 March 2013 04: 11 New
      0
      the coastal fleet is the supply fleet, while the oceanic fleet is the striking force. There will be a powerful striking force, and it will be possible to get by with a minimal coastal fleet. Otherwise, all the watchdogs will melt from a long distance
  14. 1goose3
    1goose3 20 March 2013 22: 49 New
    +1
    Article plus. The author opened and correctly laid out everything on the shelves

    The author did not reveal anything, he repeated everything that is generally known, everything was bad with conclusions, unfortunately, everything died. And it’s not horseradish that didn’t die, we get up, it’s hard but we get up and we don’t have to convince us of the opposite.
  15. understudy
    understudy 20 March 2013 23: 06 New
    0
    Quote: Tersky
    Probably with math problems ....

    I agree ... for the sacred 146 percent! laughing

    Quote: horoh
    Sooner or later, they will still be responsible for the collapse of the country's defense

    I really want it to be "early" and with our sound memory, and not in 2050.
    _______________________________________
    Understanding the undeniable importance of building new ships for the Russian Navy, one should not lose sight of those who will command them. And this means that, first of all, military education and military science should be lifted from the ruins. Iron itself will not fight.
  16. CARBON
    CARBON 21 March 2013 01: 05 New
    +4
    First you need to create a fleet which in coastal seas could become a real deterrent.
    In the Baltic and the Black Sea - capable of delivering strikes against deployable missile defense systems (Poland, Romania), for them this will be no less a headache than the Iskander. In the North, provide guaranteed protection for SSBN deployment. In the Pacific Ocean, a fleet capable of stopping any attempts by Japan to climb the Kuril Islands and also deploying an SSBN, in the long term, destroying China's port infrastructure (port facilities, terminals).
    For ocean voyages, it’s good to have on each fleet something like an operational connection of 2-3 warships (class cruiser-destroyer URO), 1-2 submarines-diesel-electric submarines + supply and support vessels.
    In the same Mediterranean Sea, they could take turns on duty once needed.