Military Review

Russian fleet is the second largest in the world

117



The modern navy is designed to perform three main tasks: ensuring strategic deterrence as one of the components of the “nuclear triad”, supporting ground forces in local conflicts and performing “decorative” functions, otherwise called “flag demonstrations”. In some cases it is possible:

- participation in international operations (demining of the Suez Canal or Chittagong Bay);

- protection of territorial waters (displacement of the cruiser "Yorktown");

- search and rescue operations (rescue of the crew of the Alpha Foxtrot 586 or search for spacecraft landing capsules splashed in the Indian Ocean)

- special operations (destruction of the USA-193 satellite in low earth orbit or escort of tankers in the Persian Gulf during the Iran-Iraq war).

Based on the foregoing, it seems curious to find out how the two most powerful cope with their tasks fleet in the world - the US Navy and the Navy of the Russian Federation. And this is by no means an absurd joke.
The Russian fleet is still the second largest naval fleet, and, oddly enough, it is still able to carry out assigned tasks in the near and far sea zone.

The colossal difference in the naval composition of the Russian Navy and the US Navy is due primarily to the difference in views on the use of the fleet on both sides of the ocean. America is predominantly a maritime power, separated from the rest of the world by two deep “anti-tank moats” with salt water. Hence the obvious desire to have a powerful fleet.

Secondly - this has been talked about for a long time - the power of the modern US Navy is redundant. At one time, the "Lady of the Seas" Great Britain focused on the "Two power standard" - the numerical superiority of the British fleet over the next two fleets. Currently, the American fleet has numerical superiority over all the fleets of the world combined!

But what does it matter in the age of nuclear weapons? Direct military conflict between the developed powers threatens to inevitably escalate into a global war with the destruction of all human civilization. And what difference does the battle between Chinese and American aircraft carriers end if nuclear warheads have already fallen on Beijing and Washington?
At the same time, for local wars, a super-power ultra-modern fleet is not required - “shoot a cannon at sparrows” or “hammer nails with a microscope” - inexhaustible folk imagination has long picked up definitions for such a situation. In its current form, the US Navy does more damage to the United States than to its opponents.

As for Russia, we are the primordial "land" power. There is nothing surprising in the fact that, despite its numerous feats and loud words to the glory of the sailors, our Navy almost always remained in secondary roles. The exodus of the Patriotic War 1812 of the year or the Great Patriotic War was decided not at sea. As a result, limited funding for the Navy programs (however, this was enough to have the second largest fleet in the world).

"There are two types of ships - submarines and targets" - says the sea wisdom. The underwater component is the basis of the fleet of any modern state. It is the submarines that have been entrusted with the honorary position of the “grave-diggers of Mankind” - an invisible and invulnerable warship is able to incinerate all life on the whole continent. A squadron of strategic missile submarine cruisers is guaranteed to destroy life on planet Earth.

In the Russian Navy there are seven operating SSBNs of the 667BDR “Kalmar” and 667BDRM “Dolphin” projects, as well as one new missile carrier of the 955 “Borey” project. Two more missile carriers are being repaired. Two "Boreas" - in construction, in a high degree of readiness.
Russian fleet is the second largest in the world

Submarine - Sea Thunderstorm
Steel eyes under black cap

As part of the US Navy such boats 14 - the legendary strategic bomber "Ohio". Dangerous opponent. Extremely secretive, reliable, with ammunition from 24 Trident II missiles.

And, nevertheless, ... parity! The insignificant difference in the number of submarines no longer matters: 16 missiles launched with 667RDRM or 24 missiles launched from the Ohio submarine are guaranteed death for all.

But miracles do not happen. In the multi-purpose submarines of the Russian Navy in total loss: only 26 multipurpose submarines and underwater carriers of cruise missiles against the 58 nuclear submarines of the US Navy. On the Americans' side, not only quantity, but also quality: the twelve submarines are the newest fourth-generation submarines of the Virginia and Sivulf type, which, by a combination of characteristics, are the best in the world. Four more American boats - converted Ohio-type missile carriers, carrying Tomahawk cruise missiles instead of ballistic Tridents, all 154 missiles in 22 mines + 2 lock cameras for combat swimmers. We have no analogs of such equipment.

The main caliber!

However, not everything is so hopeless - as part of the Russian Navy there are special purpose nuclear boats - the odious “Losharik” and its carrier - BS-64 “Moscow Region”. A new submarine of the 885 "Ash" project is undergoing tests.
In addition, Russian sailors have their own "trump card" - 20 diesel-electric submarines, in contrast to America, where diesel-electric submarines are not built for half a century. And in vain! “Dieselukha” is a simple and cheap tool for operations in coastal waters, besides, due to a number of technical reasons (lack of powerful pumps for reactor circuits, etc.) - it is much quieter than a nuclear submarine.

Conclusion: it could be better. New "Ash", modernization of titanium "Barracudas", new developments in the field of creating small diesel-electric submarines (project "Lada"). Looking forward to the future.

Moving on to the sad - the surface component of the Russian Navy is simply ridiculous against the background of the US Navy. Or is it an illusion?

The Legend of the Elusive Joe. The Russian Navy has one heavy aircraft carrier, the Admiral Kuznetsov. An aircraft carrier or an aircraft carrier? In principle, from the classic aircraft carrier, the Soviet-Russian TAVKR differs only in that it is weaker.

Americans have ten aircraft carriers! All, as one, atomic. Each is twice as big as our Kuznetsov. AND…
And ... the elusive Joe can not be caught, because nobody needs him. Who were the American aircraft carriers in the open ocean going to fight with? With gulls and albatrosses? Or with the unfinished Indian Vikramaditya?
Objectively, there are no opponents for Nimitz in the open ocean. Let the infinite expanse of water plow and beckoning American pride - until the US National Debt reaches 30 trillion. dollars and there will be no collapse of the economy of the United States.

But sooner or later "Nimitz" will approach the enemy shore and ... attack the sunny Magadan? For purely continental Russia, of the entire American fleet, only strategic Ohio submarines are dangerous.
However, in any of the local conflicts, the Nimitz nuclear supercarrier is of little use. Which, however, is understandable - the power of the Nimitz carrier-wing wing is simply insignificant against the background of thousands of combat aircraft and helicopters of the US Air Force, which tore apart Iraq, Libya and Yugoslavia.

And here are also worthy representatives of the class of aircraft carrier ships - 17 universal amphibious assault helicopter carriers / ships of the docks of the types “Tarawa”, “Wasp”, “Austin”, “San Antonio” ... As the Russian promising “Mistral”, only twice as large.
At first glance, a tremendous offensive force!
But there is one caveat: let all the 17 of these ships try to land (17 thousands of marines and 500 armored vehicles) somewhere on the coast of Iran. And better - China. Blood will flow like water. The second Dieppe is provided.

Note. Dieppe - landing operation carried out in August 1942. Three hours after the landing, half of the 6000 paratroopers were killed or wounded, the allies abandoned Tanks, equipment and in horror were evacuated from the coast of France.

Landing operations using small forces are almost always doomed to failure. And the Americans know this better than us - they prepared for the war with Iraq for six months, tormented the enemy from the air for two months, dropping 141 thousand tons of explosives on it, and then an avalanche of a million soldiers and 7000 units of armored vehicles hurled across the Iraqi border from Saudi Arabia.

USS Essex (LHD-2) - the universal landing ship of the "Wasp" type

In view of the foregoing, the combat value of the amphibious "Waspov" and "San Antonio" is not too great - it is useless to use them against any serious countries. And to use such a technique against the Papuans is stupid and wasteful, it is much easier to land a landing party at the capital airport of some Zimbabwe.

But how are the Americans fighting? Who delivers thousands of tanks and hundreds of thousands of soldiers to foreign shores? It is clear who - high-speed transports of the Shipping Command. Total Americans in the presence of such vessels 115. Formally, they do not belong to the navy, but they always walk in a dense escort ring of destroyers and frigates of the US Navy - otherwise one enemy torpedo will put a division of the American army to the bottom.

Squadron of high-speed transports Military Sealift Command. Each is the size of an aircraft-carrying cruiser "Admiral Kuznetsov"

The Russian Navy has no such ships, of course, but there are Large landing ships (BDK) As many as 19 units! They are old, rusty, slow. But they do an excellent job with their functions - to demonstrate the flag and deliver to Syria a batch of equipment and military equipment in front of the entire perturbed Western world. The BDK has neither normal air defense, nor cruise missiles, - nothing but primitive artillery. The guarantee of their security is the status of the Russian Federation as a nuclear power. Try to touch the ships under the flag of St. Andrew!
Nobody is going to drive them into a real battle - where the 40 000 – ton “Wasp” cannot handle our BDK (the displacement of 4000 tons) has nothing to do.

The next important point is that the Russian Navy has all the 15 surface ships of the far sea zone: cruisers, destroyers, large anti-submarine ships. Of these, only 4 can provide a zonal air defense squadron in open sea areas - the heavy nuclear missile cruiser Peter the Great and three missile cruisers of the 1164 project, Moscow, Varyag and Marshal Ustinov.

As part of the US Navy such ships 84, including: 22 missile cruisers "Ticonderoga" and 62 destroyer type "Orly Burk."
US cruisers and destroyers are from 90 to 122 cells OHR Mk.41, each of which lurk winged "Tomahawk" anti raketotorpedy ASROC or anti-aircraft missiles family "Stenderd" that can strike targets at ranges of up to 240 km and destroy objects outside the Earth the atmosphere. Unified digital weapons control system "Aegis" together with modern radars and universal weapons makes the "Ticondero" and "Orly Berki" the most deadly of all surface ships of the US Navy.

BOD "Admiral Panteleyev" and USS Lassen (DDG-82)

15 vs. 84. The ratio, of course, shameful. Given that the last peer of our large anti-submarine ships, the destroyer of the Spruens type, the Americans wrote off in the 2006 year.

But do not forget, the probability of a direct military conflict between the US Navy and the Russian Navy is vanishingly small - no one wants to die in a thermonuclear hell. Consequently, the Orly Burk supereminders can only powerlessly monitor the actions of our ships. In extreme cases, it is dangerous to maneuver and attack with radio curses.

At one time, to neutralize the supercraiser "Yorktown" (type "Ticonderoga") turned out to be a rather small sentry ship "Selfless" and its brave commander Kavtorang V. Bogdashina - a Soviet patrol broke the American left side, deformed the helipad, demolished the launch pad "Harpun "And prepared to re-bulk. No repetition was needed - Yorktown hastily left the inhospitable territorial waters of the Soviet Union.

By the way, about the patrol and frigates.

As part of the Russian Navy 9 frigates, corvettes and patrol, not counting the hundreds of small artillery, anti-submarine and rocket ships, rocket boats and sea minesweepers.
The US Navy has, of course, more such ships: the 22 is an elderly frigate of the Oliver Hazard Perry type and three coastal warships of the LCS type.

LCS, in every sense, is an innovative thing - the course of 45-50 units, universal weapons, a spacious helipad, modern electronics. It is expected that this year the US Navy will be replenished with the fourth ship of this type. In total, the plans sounded the construction of 12 marine supermachines.

As for the Perry frigates, they have greatly weakened lately. In 2003, rocket weapons were completely dismantled from them. Several ships of this type are written off annually and by the beginning of the next decade all Perry should be sold to allies or scrapped.

Another important point - the marine base aviation.

The naval aviation of Russia is armed with about fifty anti-submarine IL-38 and Tu-142 aircraft (let’s be realistic - how many of them are in flying condition?)
As part of the US Navy, 17 squadrons of anti-submarine aircraft, naval radio-electronic reconnaissance aircraft, and retransmitter airplanes, altogether in the number of one and a half hundred cars, excluding the reserve and Coast Guard aircraft.
In service are the legendary P-3 Orion, as well as their special reconnaissance modification EP-3 Aries. Currently, new anti-submarine aircraft P-8 Poseidon began to enter service.

P-3 Orion and P-8 Poseidon. Generational change



Long-range anti-submarine aircraft Tu-142, accompanied by "Phantoms"

Even in theory, the naval base aviation of the US Navy is three times superior to the patrol and anti-submarine aviation of the Russian Navy. And this is truly insulting. I'm not sure about the Orion and Poseidon anti-submarine abilities (where did they look when the Pike-B surfaced in the Gulf of Mexico?), But in terms of search and rescue capabilities, the Americans have more than an order of magnitude.
When the IL-38, which are still able to rise into the air, are still looking for and cannot find rafts from the shipwreck or an ice floe with fishermen - no, guys, it is impossible.

Findings in all this stories will be contradictory: on the one hand, the Russian Navy in its current state is not capable of conducting any serious military operations far from its native shores. On the other hand, Russia is not going and is not planning to fight on the other side of the world. All our modern interests are in the near abroad, in the Caucasus and in Central Asia.

Demonstration of the flag, participation in international maritime salons and naval exercises, delivery of military aid to friendly regimes, humanitarian operations, evacuation of Russian citizens from military conflict zones, protection of the territorial waters of the Russian Federation (where pack ice is not suitable close to the shore), hunting to pirate felucges - the Russian Navy can do everything (or practically everything) that the fleet should do in peacetime.

Russian fleet in international exercises
(in the bottom illustration - in the head of the second column there is a BOD pr 1155)

Author:
117 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Vladimirets
    Vladimirets 22 March 2013 08: 23 New
    25
    Sorry, article. I don’t see logic at all, comparing the Russian Navy and the United States Navy, the author for each position where we are lagging behind, concludes: yes bullshit, we have nuclear weapons, where they roam. If so, you can not build a fleet at all: we will throw missiles. The demonstration of the flag and participation in the show is not the task of the navy; for this, the Andreev flag can also be attached to a seiner. The fleet should be such as to be thought a hundred times before doing something against the country, even without taking into account nuclear missiles.
    1. IRBIS
      IRBIS 22 March 2013 08: 52 New
      +8
      Naive reasoning that our nuclear club is a guarantee of security. War, if it begins, will begin with the use of conventional weapons. But their presence, their readiness, will determine whether nuclear weapons will be used in the future. NF is the last trump card, which can really be the last. Yes, we do not need a "tub" to demonstrate their power to the Papuans. But we need ships and planes to protect our seas and shores.
      1. Goga
        Goga 22 March 2013 09: 47 New
        10
        IRBIS - A colleague, a fleet is a very expensive affair, it was no coincidence that there was a saying - if you want to ruin a small country - give it a cruiser ... There is no word how Russian fleet and naval aviation are needed, but now a really big war with a serious enemy is unlikely, and it’s unlikely to decide peacetime tasks are possible and the remnants of the Soviet fleet. Another thing is that by the time the Soviet fleet is still working out, we should not be left without new ships - so in any case, we must build and build ocean ships, of course, not chasing the states, in reasonable quantities ... hi
        1. DimychDV
          DimychDV April 5 2013 05: 16 New
          +1
          But to me, a comrade interested in military matters said that Japan builds a cruiser per year (minimum) and calls them the names of the heroes of Tsushima. And here in Texas we have, again by analogy, the 1976 Varyag cruiser and the former Frunze TAKR for self-repair at the base wall. And a couple of destroyers, of which there is only one in combat readiness, and that’s all we have a whole in the Pacific Ocean, as one of the officers there told me 4 years ago (though from a junior composition).
          I think that as long as we have such a neighbor close by - basically without the Peace and Friendship Treaty - we need a fleet. Again, Russia is breaking down in the Asia-Pacific region - how can one live there without dubby?
      2. Sirocco
        Sirocco 22 March 2013 10: 00 New
        +6
        We will not dissemble gentlemen, but this war is already underway, but not in the format that many people imagine. That is, without the use of weapons. A new type of weapon used by adversaries is Electronic, mass media, and the Internet. Pink and orange revolutions, swamp technology in action. And our fifth column helps to rock a boat named Russia, Only the trouble is that they themselves can drown, from reassessing their strengths and capabilities. And then these Nemtsov Kasyanovs will rot in the backyards of Europe, like unnecessary rubbish. An example of this is BAB, went around the world with outstretched hand. I’m afraid you shouldn’t underestimate the enemy, otherwise the entire fleet and all the power of nuclear weapons may not be needed. After all, there is nothing worse when the enemy is at the gate, and behind the gate there are people of this enemy who are ready to open the gate. If they open these "gates" of Russia, I’m afraid the Pandora’s box will be opened.
        1. killganoff
          killganoff 22 March 2013 12: 21 New
          -12
          If the boat is rocked heavily, then Kakraz Putin will leave the hill for his entire retinue.
          1. Tartary
            Tartary 22 March 2013 18: 50 New
            0
            Quote: killganoff
            If the boat is rocked heavily, then Kakraz Putin will leave the hill for his entire retinue.

            Even the hamster coder sways and sways tirelessly, but the Way doesn’t leave and doesn’t leave, A?
            Looks from the other side, we are sitting at lunch break?
            I just feel that something is knocking on the board somehow weakly, I didn’t even think that the hamsters were raging there ... I thought the rats were starving to fight from the side of the bulkhead from the hold ...
            And it’s over there ... Mmmmmmm ....
            I also thought, here we’ll finish with a smoke break after dinner, and in the remaining time to go with the men into the hold, and wild rats to be stomped there so that tomorrow they didn’t interfere ...
            Ah guys? Another time they will push around, trying to swing, we go frolic, shob fat shake, and the checker is not dull ?????????
        2. Mikola
          Mikola 23 March 2013 12: 51 New
          -5
          The goal of the Orange Revolution was fair elections and fair judges in the country and the fight against corruption of power. For you, this is the enemy's "technology" of the West smile And why didn’t you mention the other heroes of Russia - Abramovich and the like. And what do you have to do with the Orange Revolution - Ukraine is not your country. Would you go to ukrsayt for personality development
          1. mark1
            mark1 24 March 2013 10: 14 New
            +5
            Undoubtedly, the most effective tool for personal development is ukrsayt. Horrible power!
          2. seafarer
            seafarer April 14 2013 21: 28 New
            +3
            The development of personality on "ukrsayt" (in any case - those that you, Mikola, are implied) is impossible in principle. It is useful for them to visit a linguist - to collect data like a Western Ukrainian surzhik distorting Russian and Ukrainian languages, a psychiatrist - for a linguistic analysis of pathological personalities and, probably, a toxicologist - to collect poisonous saliva that oozes from each line.
            There are not many normal Ukrainian sites, but discussions of any topic on them are crammed with "non-cross-sectional Sidomites." And you are an example of this: you are trying to translate the discussion of naval issues into a politicized squabble. How much do you get paid for this?

            And if we talk about the goals of the "Orange" counter-revolution - let's recall Ukraine before 2004 and after: 1998-2003, an annual GDP growth of 16-20%. In 2005 - only 4%. In 2006 - began to take bonded IMF loans. It was the "Maidanut" that was finally buried in the CIS. And the shooting of professional statesmen: the former Minister of Transport G. Kirpa, the former Minister of the Interior Kravchenko - "suicide" with two shots, one of which blows half-skull, and the second - control in the back of the head. And how many were dismissed from the service by script lists? The famous phrase of Paul I, "We are not needed for the smart, we need the faithful," was put into practice with the small town Khorunzhevsky grotesque: instead of professionals came "Svidomo toadies" and half-educated - "Maidan field commanders." Can you remember the mayhem on the roads in 2005? Or a doubling of the dollar? However, you are unlikely to prove anything.
            For people, at least a little inclined to an unbiased analysis, have long realized that the "orange revolution" is the next stage in the development of imperialist aggression, aimed at further weakening the main geopolitical adversary - Russia.
          3. Misantrop
            Misantrop April 14 2013 22: 04 New
            +1
            Quote: Mikola
            Would you go to ukrsayt for personality development

            Just about to go to the zoo for personality development, but for some reason they disdain to ukrosayt ... laughing
      3. leon-iv
        leon-iv 22 March 2013 10: 15 New
        +4
        War, if it begins, will begin with the use of conventional weapons
        no one will fight with amers with simple weapons. TNW will immediately and a lot.
        Yes, we do not need a "tub" to demonstrate their power to the Papuans.
        bto what? Then you want to say what to our tourists in the Congo? I don’t, but the Kyrgyz Republic is in the house of the dictar which is bothering us, do not we?
      4. SuperVodka777
        SuperVodka777 22 March 2013 18: 12 New
        +4
        NF is the last trump card as you said, but even if the war goes on with conventional weapons, the loser will apply this trump card at the last moment, a dead end.
      5. yehat
        yehat 7 August 2017 16: 20 New
        0
        it’s not even a matter of war — the Russian Federation has many problems, even with the control of coastal territories
        elementary rescue, navigation, reconnaissance services, port equipment, naval aviation and much more - all this is now in some wretched form
        for comparison, the port of Tokyo (as far as I understand their coast configuration)

        and our port in Vladik

        even on the remote photo the difference is already visible, and if you take a closer look, the difference is just depressing
    2. Nesvet Nezar
      Nesvet Nezar 22 March 2013 11: 23 New
      -6
      Learn materiel !!! Thalasocracy and telulocracy. Read more about strategic initiatives. Horror! Spend time on such a site and don’t know basic things .....
      1. Vladimirets
        Vladimirets 22 March 2013 11: 31 New
        +1
        Quote: Nesarya Nesvet
        Learn materiel !!! Thalasocracy and telulocracy. Read more about strategic initiatives. Horror! Spend time on such a site and don’t know basic things .....

        What are you doing? Like we don’t need a fleet at all? We will protect our stranitsa, let them swim there as they want?
    3. Region65
      Region65 22 March 2013 15: 53 New
      -2
      the author is right, to hell with us, the fleet is like the United States if, unlike us, we don’t have to go far to the seas :)))) they are out of the way and they have to transport democracy across the ocean .. which side (in the case of the Russia-US war ) will they fit our borders? if we have almost the entire border dry, we have their fleet on our side. Pindoryltsy themselves understand this.
      1. postman
        postman 23 March 2013 07: 20 New
        +7
        Quote: Region65
        (in the event of a Russia-US war) will they fit our borders? if we have almost the entire border dry, we have their fleet on our side.

        ?
        1.With the USA and Japan, Russia has only sea ​​border.
        2.The total the length of the borders of the Russian Federation is 60 932 km.
        Of them(ONLY!) 22 km make up land borders (including 7616 km along rivers and lakes).
        The length of the sea borders of Russia is 38 807 km. Of them:
        in the Baltic Sea - 126,1 km;
        in the Black Sea - 389,5 km;
        in the Caspian Sea - 580 km;
        in the Pacific Ocean and its seas - 16 km;
        in the Arctic Ocean and its seas - 19 724,1 km.
    4. Cosmonaut
      Cosmonaut 22 March 2013 17: 34 New
      +1
      In my opinion, the essence of the article is that our fleet, sorry, is rusty and that something needs to be done.
  2. Sakhalininsk
    Sakhalininsk 22 March 2013 08: 41 New
    14
    A fairly complete review, giving an objective assessment of the state of the Russian fleet and its actual capabilities. The most correct thing in this article is that we do not need such a huge number of ships as the United States, the economy will not take out, and why not. But it is necessary to update and develop the Navy because the fleet is the most important component of ensuring state security.
    1. Arberes
      Arberes 22 March 2013 10: 15 New
      +5
      Quote: Sakhalininets
      we don’t need a lot of ships like the United States,

      In my understanding, a strong Navy is a modern and well-balanced fleet where one class of ships complements another and the grouping of ships can easily vary depending on the tasks assigned to it!
      Of course, stamping a large number of submarines and destroyers with cruisers is stupid and very expensive for the economy of our state (and probably any other), but there is one more nuance!
      We no longer have the necessary minimum of naval bases and points of replenishment and provision of our ships. Therefore, it is necessary to build support ships (and what would be done without them) or restore their bases in regions of the world that are vital for us.
      I do not know. which will come out cheaper?
      The only thing I know for sure and I have no doubt in my judgment is WE'S POWERFUL is oceanic and should be ready to defend our interests both in remote corners of the world and in coastal waters.
      But how to find this golden proportion, here you need to carefully weigh everything and finally decide on the strategy of our Navy!
      1. Santa Fe
        22 March 2013 13: 44 New
        +1
        Quote: Arberes
        stamping a large number of submarines and destroyers with cruisers is stupid and very expensive for the economy of our state (and probably any other)

        Quote: Sakhalininets
        we don’t need such a huge number of ships as the United States, the economy will not take out, and why not.

        Quote: Gogh
        the fleet is a very expensive affair, it was no coincidence that there was a saying - if you want to ruin a small country - give it a cruiser ..

        I agree with the comrades. It is impossible, just like that, by the efforts of the economy of your country, to build something like the US Navy.
        The monstrous American Navy was built on UNPAID LOAN
        If Russia also wants to build the 62 of the Aegis destroyer and 115 of high-speed military transports, one of the streets in Moscow will surely display this scoreboard:

        Government Debt Counter at the intersection of 44 Street and 6 Avenue, New York
        1. postman
          postman 26 March 2013 10: 55 New
          -2
          Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
          It is impossible, just like that, by the efforts of the economy of your country, to build something like the US Navy.

          killed, on a tumble .. on fig ....
          but:
          1. The external debt of the USA is nominated mainly in its own currency - US dollars. This debt is equal to dollar savings of the foreign sector; growth rates reflect the desire of foreigners to make savings in US dollars.
          2. And how is such a digital?
          net wealth (property minus debts) american households exceeds $ 50
          Current househousing (houses, refrigerators, etc.)!
          (a bit fell by $ 1
          compare with the scoreboard?
          URL:
          http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/06/11/us-usa-economy-wealth-idUSTRE55A4GJ200
          90611

          Who funded the US Navy?
          Remind me how much (and most importantly, both in fact) Norilsk Nickel "left"?
          Something that the super-talented businessman E mobile does not fit into the schedule in years (to be my daughter forever 22 thousandth with a penny wink )

          Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
          on one of the streets of Moscow, this display will surely appear:

          It will appear:
          1. In any case, h \ s year after Sochi
          2. in a month. after reaching the threshold of $ 70 / barrel
          This year, the budget rule has worked: for the oil and gas revenues that the budget can spend, a cut-off price of $ 91 is introduced (the average price over the past five years). This means that all additional oil and gas revenues should be credited to the reserve fund until its volume reaches 7% of GDP (1% of GDP, or 3,9 trillion rubles as of March 2,6).
          Estimated (official) budget deficit
          1 000 000 000 000,00 rubles
          1. postman
            postman 26 March 2013 11: 06 New
            0
            US debt structure for March 2008 according to the Fed:

            61 trillion US dollars - public sector debt
            38,2 trillion US dollars - private sector debt
            37 trillion US dollars - obligations for medical and pension services to civil servants
            $ 14,2 trillion - financial sector debt
            12,8 trillion US dollars - household debt
            $ 10 trillion - federal government debt
            $ 9 trillion - corporate debt
            $ 7 trillion - future social security spending
            3,5 trillion US dollars - loans from trust funds
            3 trillion US dollars - external debt
            2,5 trillion US dollars - domestic public debt
            $ 2 trillion - state and municipal debt
            $ 1,7 trillion - private sector interest debt

            The external debt of the USA (private and federal sector) is 13,8 trillion, of which federal debt to foreign investors is about 2.6 trillion. The main US lenders are Japan and China. America owes $ 583 billion to Japan, $ 503 billion to China. In total, this makes up 40% of the total US government debt. Debt to China is growing at the United States at 25% per year. Russia ranks eighth in the ranking of US government debt holders. As of June 30, 2008, the share of US government debt to Russia amounted to 65.3 billion dollars, or 2,5%.
  3. radio operator
    radio operator 22 March 2013 08: 42 New
    +4
    The significance of the fleet was realized by the first Russian emperor.
    Our task is to ensure that the fleet is not a "wedding general", but is the second hand of the Russian state.
  4. Vanek
    Vanek 22 March 2013 08: 48 New
    +1
    The Russian Navy is able to do everything (or almost everything) that the fleet should do in peacetime.

    And more actually is not necessary.
    1. Bronis
      Bronis 22 March 2013 09: 10 New
      +9
      Quote: Vanek
      The Russian Navy is able to do everything (or almost everything) that the fleet should do in peacetime.

      Quote: Vanek
      And more actually is not necessary.

      But actually it is called the "Navy", i.e. fleet in case of war. Demonstration of the flag is good. But it can be convincing only if there will be a sufficient number of ships that have the forces and means to counter the enemy. Sounds a bit blurry. But it can be seen from the same Syria ... This does not mean that we should build a fleet more than the United States, but should strive to create several modern and sufficiently powerful naval groups. Now, unfortunately, the fleet is built on the principle of "use what remains." And you need to "use what is necessary."
      In addition, there are different wars. And nuclear weapons are the most extreme case. Warranty against non-aggression of nuclear powers. But Georgia was not afraid of nuclear weapons, because there were no legal grounds to use them (there was no critical threat to the defense capability of the Russian Federation).
      1. Andrey57
        Andrey57 22 March 2013 09: 56 New
        +4
        Georgia hoped that Russia would be scared of mattresses - it wasn’t scared, Georgia’s “powerful navy” received in full. First of all, probably, it is nevertheless necessary to restore the Black Sea Fleet, so that the Turks do not even have a thought about the new Ottoman Empire, well, so that the newly-made slime dishes of the mattresses in the person of Romania and Bulgaria sit and do not yap in their ports. The Caspian flotilla should also be a priority - Inan launched a “destroyer” in the Caspian on a copper, though he is far from a normal destroyer, but only Russian Navy ships in the Caspian can be a real enemy for this ship, and conclusions must be drawn hi
      2. Sirocco
        Sirocco 22 March 2013 10: 04 New
        +2
        The article is, as it were, calming, lulling, Like they say, sleep peacefully. Oh these Sirens with this approach, they will soon say that Barkas is super.
    2. seafarer
      seafarer April 14 2013 21: 44 New
      +1
      Quote: Vanek
      The Russian Navy is able to do everything (or almost everything) that the fleet should do in peacetime.

      All true.
      But the keywords "in peacetime".
      And the Navy exists to solve all the necessary tasks in wartime based on the current military doctrine.
      But the doctrine is not easy. First you need to decide what the fleet is for, its main tasks. And then start to restore it.
      I know that the doctrine of the Navy exists. But how much is it worked out and how does it correspond to modern realities?
  5. SPIRITofFREEDOM
    SPIRITofFREEDOM 22 March 2013 09: 26 New
    0
    Do not forget what kind of factor helped the defenders of Leningrad very much.
    Depleted Leningraders defended themselves under the cover of strikes of the heaviest strike component of the fleet.
    Thanks a lot to comrade Zhukov for what he did!
    Where was the most difficult situation sent him!
    1. Setrac
      Setrac 22 March 2013 13: 31 New
      +1
      You correctly drew attention to this paradox. Heavy battleships could not influence the result of battles at sea between the USA and Japan, but they played a huge role on land during the defense of Leningrad.
    2. Andrey77
      Andrey77 22 March 2013 19: 56 New
      +1
      All right. But Zhukov has nothing to do with it. Learn the story. The Soviet Navy was then commanded by Kuznetsov. Zhukov is not necessary to sculpt here, right?
  6. Nikolko
    Nikolko 22 March 2013 09: 28 New
    +1
    Article is good +
    Listen, is there anyone on the site who knows how many and nearly 300 ships and submarines we have in combat?
    1. Sirocco
      Sirocco 22 March 2013 10: 06 New
      0
      Follow the link. http://wedun26.livejournal.com/9548.html
      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 22 March 2013 13: 04 New
        +3
        Why walk? Infa a little outdated since then
    2. postman
      postman 26 March 2013 11: 16 New
      0
      Quote: Nikolko
      how many and nearly 300 ships we have

      of 277
      / clickable /
  7. Akim
    Akim 22 March 2013 09: 29 New
    +3
    Russian naval forces are scattered across 4 fleets. And if you compare with the Chinese ...
    1. leon-iv
      leon-iv 22 March 2013 12: 48 New
      0
      And if you compare with the Chinese ...
      and what is there to compare with us the main striking force under water. If there are strains, they will drive hunters with SF and badabum will be to the Chinese. No need to make supermen from the Chinese; they have not won a single war in recent history.
      PS I remind you again that no one will fight with China with conventional weapons
      ZYY if China decides to fight with Russia, then Induy Taiwan and Amer will immediately get involved in the war.
      1. Akim
        Akim 22 March 2013 13: 12 New
        +2
        Quote: leon-iv
        and what is there to compare with us the main striking force under water. If there are strains, they will drive hunters with SF and badabum will be to the Chinese. No need to make supermen from the Chinese; they have not won a single war in recent history.

        I’m not talking about military excellence and the confrontation I’m talking about, but about quantitative and qualitative. Immediately focus on the war. As for submarine forces, the Chinese also have them.
        1. leon-iv
          leon-iv 22 March 2013 13: 30 New
          +3
          Of course, I understand everything, but even the Khetais recognize that the most respectable thing for them is Warsaw. Now think about what they’ll do at least a couple of ash trees there? Which is considered the quietest boat.
          1. Akim
            Akim 22 March 2013 13: 39 New
            +1
            Ust with them and with ballistic and cruise missiles
            1. leon-iv
              leon-iv 22 March 2013 13: 50 New
              +3
              ballistic
              well, we won’t touch this because it’s the strategic nuclear forces there, they generally feel sad.
              cruise missiles
              I say Warsaw women with export clubs.
          2. tlauicol
            tlauicol 23 March 2013 17: 29 New
            +1
            we don’t even have a couple of ash trees. and the one that is will not pass the test and his problems are big
      2. Santa Fe
        22 March 2013 13: 51 New
        +2
        Quote: leon-iv
        And if you compare with the Chinese ...

        Why does China need a fleet to attack Russia)))))
        We have a three-thousand-kilometer land border.
        1. leon-iv
          leon-iv 22 March 2013 15: 57 New
          0
          Why does China need a fleet to attack Russia
          I don’t understand why China is attacking?
          1. Phantom Revolution
            Phantom Revolution 22 March 2013 18: 00 New
            0
            Territory, resources, although this is ridiculous because in the Far East, trees have long been exported by forests. So it’s more profitable to squeeze the islands and their zones with gas and oil.
            1. djon3volta
              djon3volta 22 March 2013 19: 10 New
              -4
              Quote: Phantom Revolution
              So it’s more profitable to squeeze the islands and their zones with gas and oil.

              when will it be pressed? ))) The Chinese leader came to bow to Putin, saying they want to be friends with you and not fight.
              1. Phantom Revolution
                Phantom Revolution 22 March 2013 22: 15 New
                0
                Islands of Japan if you do not understand.
        2. tlauicol
          tlauicol 23 March 2013 17: 30 New
          0
          there are no roads to Kamchatka with smokers
      3. postman
        postman 26 March 2013 11: 24 New
        0
        Quote: leon-iv

        and what is there to compare with us the main impact force under water

        ?
        Nameplate (ours) below
        Navy PLA (Junk Data -2006)



        Scoreboard for the Navy PLA in response to an answer
        ======================
        our
        1. postman
          postman 26 March 2013 11: 30 New
          +1
          What about
          Quote: leon-iv
          we have the main striking force under water.

          ??
          Omniscient can clarify?
          / preferably taking into account the US Navy, England and France, but there are no other friends, however /
          =====================
          "constant readiness force coefficient - KSPG" is an indicator reflecting the specific gravity of combat-ready forces in the total number of forces and means of the fleet.

          Obviously, the values ​​of "KSPG" can be determined by analyzing the actual readiness of the submarine, BNK or LA, the possibility of which we are deprived. Therefore, we initially believe that the value of "KSPG" is accepted in the framework of (0.4-0.6) for BNK and PL, and (0.75-0.85) for aircraft

          CHINA (below), RF (was higher)
    2. kursantosha
      kursantosha 23 March 2013 22: 29 New
      0
      Nice to go
  8. jayich
    jayich 22 March 2013 09: 40 New
    +3
    Quote: Nikolko
    Article is good +
    Listen, is there anyone on the site who knows how many and nearly 300 ships and submarines we have in combat?

    here you are http://www.russian-ships.info/today/
    and do not forget to divide by 2
    Updating the current list of naval personnel of the Russian Navy: March 11, 2013


    summary table
    by the Russian Navy 2013


    Class BF BSF SF TOF KVFl Total
    Ballistic missile nuclear submarines - - 10 3 - 13
    Nuclear submarines with cruise missiles - - 3 5 - 8
    Multipurpose nuclear submarines - - 14 5 - 19
    Special-purpose nuclear submarines - - 8 - - 8
    Special Purpose Diesel Submarines - - 1 - - 1
    Diesel submarines 3 2 8 8 - 21
    Total Submarines: 70

    -------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------


    Heavy aircraft cruisers - - 1 - - 1
    Heavy Nuclear Missile Cruisers - - 2 1 - 3
    Missile Cruisers - 1 1 1 - 3
    Large anti-submarine ships - 1 5 4 - 10
    Destroyers 2 - 2 4 - 8
    Corvettes 2 - - - - 2
    Patrol ships 2 3 - - 2 7
    Small anti-submarine ships 7 7 6 8 - 28
    Small missile ships 4 4 3 4 - 15
    Missile boats 7 5 - 11 5 28
    Small artillery ships - - - - 4 4
    Artillery boats - - 2 - 5 7
    Sea minesweepers - 7 4 2 - 13
    Base Minesweepers 5 2 6 7 2 22
    Raid Minesweepers 15 2 1 - 5 23
    Large landing ships 4 7 4 4 - 19
    Landing ships on VP 2 - - - - 2
    Landing boats 3 2 4 4 7 20
    Total warships and boats: 207
    interesting and this boat
    Large landing ships
    Project 1174, code "Rhinoceros"

    upgrade?
  9. mark1
    mark1 22 March 2013 09: 50 New
    +9
    Now the main thing is not to measure your pussy with the US Navy, but to systematically and methodically restore your own. The payroll we have is certainly large, but actually a little less combat-ready
    1. Tektor
      Tektor 22 March 2013 11: 31 New
      +2
      Very true remark, I support. I want to add that it would be necessary to determine priorities. I would put safety at the forefront of the submarine nuclear deterrence forces (SNF). The second priority is the formation of self-sufficient groups in remote areas (with nuclear weapons): in the Mediterranean Sea, in the horn of Africa, i.e. in the Indian Ocean, in the Caribbean and in the Pacific. The first task involves the creation of strong coastal and coastal forces with specially protected areas. And the second is the development and creation of surface and submarines of the first and second rank.
      1. Andrey77
        Andrey77 22 March 2013 19: 46 New
        0
        Boats can shoot straight from the pier. So, at the expense of SNF, sleep peacefully. Formation of groupings? Against who? Does it make sense to control the Strait of Aden, stupidly clearing from the "pirates"? I think no. The game is not worth the candle. The Americans would have cleared everyone for a long time.
      2. seafarer
        seafarer April 14 2013 22: 05 New
        0
        The main problem of the Navy, since the time of the REV, has been the creation of normal fleet bases, basing points, and repair and restoration facilities.
        I don’t know where, but in the 80s there was no normal basing at the Pacific Fleet, as well as repairs. Beautiful ships - TAKR "Minsk" and "Novorossiysk" were killed standing on raid barrels. As a result, in 5 years Novorossitsk has developed a resource of main boilers. And the same picture throughout Primorye. And repairs in Dalzavod or Chazhma? After repair, the condition of the ship is worse than before being put into the factory.
        For normal repair the ships had to be driven to Nikolaev. Everything, as on the eve of the REV.
        Until there is a normal basing, the entire Navy will be "disposable." And there’s not enough money for that. The USSR, by the way, was not enough.
  10. Nagaibak
    Nagaibak 22 March 2013 09: 58 New
    +6
    Here we have such a wonderful fleet! Now I am calm ... We are not in danger, nothing is going to attack and Thank God !!! In general, we will defeat everyone because everyone is afraid of us and we are the coolest in the world !!! And you don’t have to do anything, everything will be formed by itself ... hehe .. like the article wound up such thoughts ... hehe ...
    And the rest of the NATO countries? The author, if they press us, they will do it together. England, France, Germany ... then the jackals catch up .. Poland, the Scandinavians ... China will be glad to tear something off, together with Japan.
    If we are greatly weakened to finish rushing everything. Including those who seem to be in good relations with us now. This has already happened in our history.
    Only irreparable damage can stop potential aggressors. And this can only be done by the Strategic Missile Forces at the moment. So that Glory of the Strategic Missile Forces !!!
  11. SIBIR38RUS
    SIBIR38RUS 22 March 2013 10: 05 New
    -1
    Yeah ... not weak you are behind in quantity ... But to tear your ass and build packs of battleships and frigates means to bury the Russian economy. Gradually and slowly build - then we lag even further. Conclusion: What are we going to do? .......
    1. mark1
      mark1 22 March 2013 10: 08 New
      +3
      Tear ass and build in packs, as well as restore what was built before us and poher
    2. Nagaibak
      Nagaibak 22 March 2013 11: 45 New
      +3
      SIBIR38RUS "Gradually and slowly build - then we are even more behind then. Conclusion: What are we going to do?"
      The admiral of the USSR Navy S. Gorshkov once wrote that in order to have a normal fleet, a country should have a shipbuilding industry plus a normally developed fishing, civilian fleet plus a military fleet. I think he knew what he was saying. The creation of the USSR ocean fleet is largely his merit. In order to raise these sectors, you need to work hard, set tasks for enterprises and achieve their fulfillment. But if you deal with naval affairs, you will have to interact with all kinds of allies. Therefore, it is necessary to deal with the entire economy of the country ... If you do not deal with these issues, then you can enjoy every boat launched as it is now, and later we will enjoy boats like ships. If we only raise the navy, we will all the time be in the category of catching up.
  12. SIBIR38RUS
    SIBIR38RUS 22 March 2013 10: 07 New
    0
    PS I really hope for our early advantage in multipurpose submarines and SSBNs. Give more Boreev and Ashen! :)
    1. mark1
      mark1 22 March 2013 10: 23 New
      0
      And also Grachenkov and Sirens (a joke)
  13. Andrey57
    Andrey57 22 March 2013 10: 18 New
    0
    As for high-speed transports, the amers will convert high-speed container ships into them. By the way, one of the transports in the mattress fleet is a converted Soviet-built ship. hi
    1. mark1
      mark1 22 March 2013 12: 09 New
      0
      We have a wonderful Sevmorput lighter carrier with excellent modernization potential. Maybe almost everything that the fantasy wants. By the way, he has a good structural protection in the form of an ice belt (almost an armored belt)
  14. Heccrbq
    Heccrbq 22 March 2013 11: 11 New
    0
    Conclusion: it could be better. New "Ash", modernization of titanium "Barracudas", new developments in the field of creating small diesel-electric submarines (project "Lada"). Looking forward to the future.
    You will wait in one case, if you and the Forbes list are scattered, desires will coincide, and this is already fantastic.
  15. AK-74-1
    AK-74-1 22 March 2013 11: 32 New
    0
    The fleet is definitely needed. 3 directions for the use of ships, the author indicated correctly. There are many disputes over the construction of aircraft carriers, missile cruisers, etc. In my opinion, you need to move away from evaluating ships in monetary terms. It is necessary to evaluate the costs of physical resources and prioritize. In my opinion, while development is going in the right direction, that is, submarines are being built. There are new projects of surface ships using new materials, technologies, forms and new ship equipment. Need time.
  16. bistrov.
    bistrov. 22 March 2013 11: 48 New
    +5
    I read the article and comments. Yes, I agree, the article is somewhat lulling, but as they say, there are no grounds for tearing your hair out. It is necessary to systematically conduct the construction of new, modern ships, keep them in working order and, as far as possible, upgrade the old ones. Try to modernize 4 TAKr, based on them to create 3 mobile task forces, one for each fleet, one for the sludge and repair, urgently upgrade the Black Sea Fleet (here is an obstacle in the person of Ukraine, it does not allow it to do what they thought when they signed the agreement on Sevastopol?). About the aircraft carriers. It is necessary to analyze this issue comprehensively. We do not need 10 aircraft carriers, but 4 I think are necessary, we must immediately act in this direction. Yes, the modern fleet is a lot of money, but this is both technological progress and the mover of versatile industry, highly educated engineers, technicians, officers, sailors, these are thousands of new jobs, these are new structures in the deserted shores of the Arctic and the Far East. Russia is a great naval power and cannot do without a modern, powerful and at the same time compact, navy!
    1. za_zik
      za_zik 23 March 2013 05: 25 New
      -1
      TA does not give? !!! For a long time inclined in a pose - if only there was a desire
  17. Andy
    Andy 22 March 2013 12: 00 New
    +4
    "attack solar Magadan?"

    “However, in any of the local conflicts, the Nimitz nuclear supercarrier is of little use. Which, however, is understandable - the power of the Nimitsa carrier-based aircraft wing is simply insignificant against the background of thousands of combat aircraft and helicopters of the US Air Force, tearing Iraq, Libya and Yugoslavia to shreds. "


    The third article from this aFtor and the same phrases. to comment already laziness.
    1. Delta
      Delta 22 March 2013 12: 25 New
      +5
      laughing but I'm not lazy. Once the author continues to zhzhot, we will fast and. The author, I asked a question directly related to this article in yesterday’s topic (and you merged somewhere (your terminology): if the American aircraft carriers are useless, if this class of ships is useless, if the Soviet submarines and surface fleet were engaged only in opposing or were preparing to fight the enemy submarines, then why were several submarine divisions officially named anti-avian? and, for example, the 10th division received this status not in the distant 60s or 70s, but in 1985. Huh?
      1. Santa Fe
        22 March 2013 14: 07 New
        -1
        Quote: Delta
        for example, the 10 division did not receive this status in the distant 60 or 70 years, but in the 1985 m. Huh?

        and what status did the remaining 25 divisions and individual submarine brigades of the USSR Navy receive?)))

        the situation with cruisers - “killer aircraft carriers” is repeated
        15 missile cruisers against the 90 BOD - enemy submarines were priority, aircraft carriers - pampering, dessert for a snack.
        1. Delta
          Delta 22 March 2013 17: 55 New
          +3
          Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
          and what status did the remaining 25 divisions and individual brigades of submarines of the USSR Navy receive?

          stop, the situation with the “Regulus” is repeated, and not only with them, because as before, “not at all” and “it was, but not enough” are two different things. I asked about those that were officially called anti-aircraft, and not about the rest. Of course, there were strategic and others, but who will drag them here. As? recognize that the appointment some (Note - I am not saying that all) of the units of the USSR Navy did it exist - tracking, counteracting and fighting the enemy’s AHG? or stubbornness still does not leave you contrary to common sense?
          1. Santa Fe
            22 March 2013 18: 13 New
            -3
            Quote: Delta
            some (Note - I am not saying that all) of the units of the Navy of the USSR did it exist - tracking, counteracting and fighting the enemy’s AHG?

            Well?
            The vast majority of the USSR Navy was engaged in a completely different job

            The horror of the Soviet commanders, the squadron "41 for Freedom"
            1. Delta
              Delta 22 March 2013 19: 06 New
              +2
              Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
              The vast majority of the USSR Navy was engaged in a completely different job

              ABOUT! Already the vast majority. And he said - no one was engaged in American AUGs, no one took them seriously laughing Or again insert the word "practically"? so this verbiage is yours, no more.
              1. Santa Fe
                22 March 2013 19: 32 New
                -2
                Quote: Delta
                And he said - no one was engaged in American AUGs

                can you show where I wrote this?
                Quote: Delta
                no one took them seriously

                1 division of 25?
                1. Delta
                  Delta 22 March 2013 20: 11 New
                  +1
                  Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                  can you show where I wrote this?

                  sure, not a problem. One example is http://topwar.ru/25644-u-kazhdogo-pokoleniya-svoe-otklonenie-perevooruzhenie-vmf
                  -rossii.html # comment-id-1009247 namely the phrase: "The entire Navy of the Soviet Socialist Republic was oriented towards the fight against American nuclear submarines."
                  Will you get out again?

                  Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                  1 division of 25?

                  sure one?
                  1. Santa Fe
                    22 March 2013 20: 52 New
                    -2
                    Quote: Delta
                    "The entire Navy of the Soviet Socialist Republic was focused on the fight against American nuclear submarines."

                    I have already brought you the alignment three times:

                    Surface component of the USSR Navy:
                    - 15 missile cruisers - “aircraft carrier killers”
                    - 90 Large anti-submarine ships

                    Driving component:
                    Soviet industry built about a hundred submarines on 11 projects. The main striking force of the USSR Navy at sea. Some of these boats were part of the divisions, the names of which were "anti-aircraft" (10-I Pacific Fleet or 35-I SF).

                    At the same time, the following were created:
                    - 8 RPKSN projects
                    - 13 multipurpose nuclear submarine projects.
                    - A number of special projects such as 09774 or Losharika

                    Draw conclusions yourself.

                    ps / if you found a real copybook like an LMW - this is only welcome. but pulling phrases out of context and finding fault with other people's words out of the blue is disgusting
                    1. Delta
                      Delta 22 March 2013 22: 25 New
                      +1
                      yes it’s clear that disgust, because you do not know how to perceive criticism normally. And this puts your articles under attack constantly. And also the fact that they have a lot of inaccuracies, generalizations. The tendentiousness of your articles is over the top (remember only the Falklands, in which the UK almost accidentally won, according to your words). I found not only this one, and this is not a typo, but an error. You have been pointed out many times for errors, like TA located perpendicular to the longitudinal axis)))

                      Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                      Some of these boats were part of the divisions, the name of which was "anti-aircraft" (10th Pacific Fleet or 35th Northern Fleet).

                      But what about "ONE"? and? it turns out - not one? wink

                      But there is only one conclusion and it was not even made by me, but by the more competent people who created and operated the USSR Navy, and it consists in the fact that the fight against the AUG took a key role. In any case, for boats with cruise missiles and multipurpose / torpedo boats. From here your conclusion is broken that the aircraft carriers did not divert the forces of the Soviet Navy and that their share in the arms race was penny. You should at least read the memoirs of submariners to understand who they "grazed" in the 60-80s. And when the aircraft carriers went to Vietnam, our submarines rushed there. And the “Kitty Hawk” later rammed not a submarine longboat, but our nuclear submarine. And “America” was constantly monitored, and at the Enterprise, many trained in training shooting.

                      And make a second conclusion for yourself: if you want to write an article, make sure that later you can answer for every word.
                      1. Santa Fe
                        23 March 2013 00: 09 New
                        -3
                        Quote: Delta
                        who created and operated the Navy of the USSR and it consists in the fact that the fight against AUG took a key role. In any case, for boats with cruise missiles and multipurpose / torpedo boats.

                        So you decide first - the fight against the AUG occupied a key role for the USSR Navy or only for boats with cruise missiles))))
                        Quote: Delta
                        You should at least read the memoirs of submariners to understand who they "grazed" in the 60-80's

                        "probable adversary" fleet
                        Remember the Reagan 600 Ships program?
                        Quote: Delta
                        And when the aircraft carriers went to Vietnam, our submarines rushed there. And “America” was constantly monitored.

                        is that all you could find?))) weak

                        the bulk of the USSR Navy was engaged in other things.
                        - deployment and cover of the SSBN, the fight against enemy missile carriers, the dismantling of the power of the Soviet Union in Africa, Central America, Europe and Asia, the delivery of aid to friendly regimes, the clearance of the Suez Canal and Chittagong Bay, patrol and protection of tervodes, search and rescue operations, providing the USSR space program, the duty and escort of Soviet ships in zones of military conflicts, the supply of military bases and missile defense systems on all continents of the earth ....
                      2. Delta
                        Delta 23 March 2013 00: 34 New
                        +3
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        So you decide first - the fight against the AUG occupied a key role for the USSR Navy or only for boats with cruise missiles

                        oh, how stupid you are moving out. Kindergarten is simple. And that submarines with cruise missiles could be separate from the Navy? No brainer, that’s what I said so that once again you wouldn’t want to argue with the obvious and say something like “but there were also strategists”. But here you blurted out ....

                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        Is that all you could find?

                        Do I need more? it’s only you who with your children's brains think that the number of photos and numbers caught in Google solve something. For whom is the problem google now?))) I just brought what I remember (part. As an example), and not the way you look for and generate all pseudo-sensations.

                        Well, as a matter of fact, by what I declared, you were blown away and you continue to bullish the same thing. On the principle of "I will seize myself but I will not obey"
                      3. Santa Fe
                        23 March 2013 16: 02 New
                        -2
                        Quote: Delta
                        the fight against ACG has played a key role. In any case, for boats with cruise missiles and multipurpose / torpedo boats

                        Are you sure?)))
                        Quote: Delta
                        And that submarines with cruise missiles could be separate from the Navy?

                        The Navy is not only a submarine with SLCM))))
                        Quote: Delta
                        but there were also strategists "

                        There were also BOD, MPK, MRK, anti-submarine cruisers, supply ships, CERs, SSBNs, RKR, destroyers, artillery cruisers, TAVKR, BDK, minesweepers ... there were 1300 ships in total for the 1989 year.

                        you drove away when you wrote:
                        Quote: Delta
                        who created and operated the Navy of the USSR and it consists in the fact that the fight against AUG took a key role.

                        The range of tasks of the Navy of the USSR was much broader and the fight against the AUG was of importance in 10 place.
                      4. Delta
                        Delta 23 March 2013 16: 48 New
                        +1
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        the fight against AUG was 10th in importance

                        if you tell me where you got such information from, I’ll leave it behind. I will personally pretend that you convinced me. And while you are engaged in your speculations, then this is nothing more than verbiage, fantasies for shkolota. Come on, surprise everyone with “data” on the 10th place)))) Well, you love numbers and accuracy laughing
                      5. Santa Fe
                        23 March 2013 17: 46 New
                        -2
                        Quote: Delta
                        if you tell me where you got such information from, I’ll leave it behind. I will personally pretend that you convinced me. And while you are engaged in your speculations, then this is nothing more than verbiage, fantasies for shkoloty

                        Well, but while I am collecting information, in return, you will try to find confirmation of your imagination:
                        Quote: Delta
                        competent people who created and exploited the Navy of the USSR and it consists in the fact that the fight against AUG took a key role
                      6. Santa Fe
                        23 March 2013 19: 23 New
                        -1
                        Quote: Delta
                        Come on, surprise everyone with the “data” about the 10 place)))) Well, you love numbers and accuracy laughing

                        Look and be surprised:

                        The first five main tasks of the Navy of the USSR:

                        - deployment of SSBNs and submarines with torpedo nuclear weapons and ensuring their combat stability;

                        - The fight against enemy strategic submarine missile carriers and multipurpose nuclear submarines. For this purpose stood out 90 BOD, anti-submarine cruisers and 530 small anti-submarine ships. + camouflaged patrols, hundreds of aircraft and helicopters of base patrol aviation, underwater lighting ships, underwater killers, etc. 705 ...

                        - the transfer of troops by sea, the delivery of military assistance and equipment to friendly regimes. For this purpose, 153 BDKs, medium landing ships and 26 air-cushion landing ships stood out. For the fire support of the landings, the Navy of the USSR specifically contained 14 heavy artillery cruisers, etc. 68-bis, and built 17 missile and artillery destroyers, etc. 956

                        - visual and RT reconnaissance, relaying and tracking the situation in all regions of the oceans (100 communications ships, large, medium and small reconnaissance ships stood out for this purpose). Support for the Soviet Space Program, search for boarding stages, telemetry, support for testing Soviet ICBMs and monitoring of test launches of the “probable enemy” - nine other ships of the Navy measuring complex were engaged in this. The apotheosis was the giant nuclear CER-33 "Ural", the creation of which worked 18 ministries.

                        CFC "Marshal Nedelin"


                        - a constant presence in the ports of African countries (Angola, Mozambique, Libya, Ethiopia, Egypt, etc.), Latin America, Europe and Asia (Vietnam, Bpngladish, Indonesia, Yemen, Warsaw block countries, the Middle East). “Demonstration of the flag”, conducting special operations with a diplomatic bias (clearance of Suez, Chittagong, humanitarian aid after natural disasters), escorting Soviet and foreign ships in zones of military conflict, military presence in hot spots, monitoring the progress of NATO naval exercises.

                        Quote: Delta
                        the more competent people who created and operated the Navy of the USSR and it consists in the fact that the fight against AUG took a key role

                        Now come on, bespontovoe yap, prove that the fight against ten unfortunate AUGs occupied a key role
                      7. Delta
                        Delta 23 March 2013 19: 40 New
                        0
                        Well, firstly, you \\\\\\\\. And secondly, if you at least understood what a “key role” is, then you would not even want to dispute something here. For if continuous monitoring is carried out by at least twenty percent of the available submarines, then this is already one of the key roles of the fleet, because the tension was already too great for the submarines to be left without a fig to take them to walk for the aircraft carriers. Thirdly, if you stated (and you did, and I REMINDED TO REMEMBER, you were sick for memory) that NOBODY in the USSR Navy was engaged in AUGs, and therefore they are basically useless aircraft carriers, then I proved the opposite to you. But where can I confess to you, you started stupid chatter. Then you started turning on the rear as usual and quickly looking, and what other divisions (after recklessly stated that one (although you didn’t even know about this until I measuredly began to surprise you) were still called anti-aircraft. But not all laughing

                        I'll meet you in your next article, this one has exhausted itself. I will always be happy \\\\\\\\\\\\\ pseudo-historian of the fleet))))
                      8. Santa Fe
                        23 March 2013 19: 51 New
                        +1
                        Quote: Delta

                        Well, first of all, you are a hamlo. And secondly, if you at least understood what a “key role” is, then you would not even want to dispute something here. For if continuous monitoring is carried out by at least twenty percent of the available submarines, then this is already one of the key roles of the fleet, because the tension was already too great for the submarines to be left without a fig to take them to walk for the aircraft carriers. Thirdly, if you stated (and you did, and I REMINDED TO REMEMBER, you were sick for memory) that NOBODY in the USSR Navy did not deal with AUGs, and therefore they are basically useless aircraft carriers, then I proved the opposite to you. But where can I confess to you, you started stupid chatter. Then you started turning on the rear as usual and quickly looking, and what other divisions (after recklessly stated that one (although you didn’t even know about this until I measuredly began to surprise you) were still called anti-aircraft. But not all

                        Pathetic answer

                        Quote: Delta
                        the more competent people who created and operated the Navy of the USSR and it consists in the fact that the fight against AUG took a key role

                        laughing
                      9. postman
                        postman 26 March 2013 10: 32 New
                        0
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        SWEET_SIXTEEN

                        Quote: Delta
                        Delta

                        Guys. Well then I want to blather ....
                        but it’s scary, your argument is painfully hot. I'm afraid the plush will fly.
                        How are you ?
                        (though I have a time delay of -10 hours_ unforeseen factors)
                        PS
                        Quote: BoA KAA
                        In the red book "Fundamentals ..." with the signature stamp Owls. secretly

                        saw. It seems to be on the move now. I don’t remember about the second. I can clarify 2 days from the source
                      10. Santa Fe
                        26 March 2013 18: 06 New
                        0
                        Quote: Postman
                        Guys. Well then I want to blather ....
                        but it’s scary, your argument is painfully hot. I'm afraid the plush will fly.
                        How are you ?

                        I am always in favor.
                        come on, tell me your vision of the situation
                        Quote: Postman
                        (though I have a time delay of -10 hours_ unforeseen factors)

                        are you beyond the orbit of Uranus?)))
                      11. postman
                        postman 27 March 2013 23: 00 New
                        0
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        come on, tell me your vision of the situation

                        I have 3 problems:
                        1. there is no material at hand, I'm not here but there.
                        2. expensive ($ 17 / day) -creep; and slow Internet (by going to WoT, I chopped off the entire body)
                        Hochma (re-end) how to solve the problem with paid Wi-Fi in the room:
                        ...... buy LAN Cable in the market and connect directly to the router. True, he ADSL speed pings are not the same.
                        3. to rest hotz. Tweet while the rainy hours

                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        are you beyond the orbit of Uranus?)))

                        What do tours already sell?
              2. Boa kaa
                Boa kaa 24 March 2013 02: 55 New
                +4
                Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN "Now come on, bespontovoe yap, prove that the fight against ten unfortunate AUGs occupied a key role"
                Dear opponent! In the red book "Fundamentals ..." with the signature stamp Owls. Secretly, the fight against the enemy’s AMG was 2, after the fight against the SSB. That's for sure. In a conventional war (without the use of nuclear warheads), they formed the basis of the surface fleet of the US Navy, and in a nuclear war they were positioned as a reserve of strategic nuclear forces.
                That's it.
                Therefore, your partner is right in 100%.
                And one more thing: An intelligent person should not insult an opponent even in the heat of a dispute. (if you consider yourself as such). I have the honor.
              3. Santa Fe
                24 March 2013 03: 06 New
                -3
                Quote: BoA KAA
                In the red book "Fundamentals ..." with the signature stamp Owls. Secretly, the fight against the enemy’s AMG was 2, after the fight against the SSB. That's for sure.

                Look at this book of course will not succeed
                Argument not accepted
                Quote: BoA KAA
                with vulture owls. Secretly, the fight against the enemy’s AMG was 2, after the fight against the SSB.

                But surprisingly, the bulk of the ships of the Soviet fleet was not created at all to deal with aircraft carriers
                Quote: BoA KAA
                An intelligent person should not insult an opponent even in the heat of a dispute

                The opponent could not object to anything intelligible
                Burrowing yap
              4. Boa kaa
                Boa kaa 24 March 2013 12: 19 New
                +3
                Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                Look at this book of course will not succeed

                Why so! To do this, you need to serve in the fleet in certain (not frail) positions, have one form admission, etc. ... Therefore, as the classic said: "You are not in the church, Shura, you will not be deceived"
                Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                the bulk of the ships of the Soviet fleet was not created at all to deal with aircraft carriers

                And no one even says that the fleet had only one task: the fight against AVU. Delta (2) and I stated: 1) an aircraft carrier is a strong and dangerous thing; 2) therefore it stood out for all RKR (RCB), PLA (Plark) as the main target in the order. What commanders regularly read about in combat orders. This document (and the tasks assigned to it on the BS, autonomous system) to the letter corresponded to the "typical" tasks for this class of ships.
                There were other ships:
                - rpkSN - for the destruction of important coastal facilities (points of administrative and military command, nuclear warhead storage facilities, basing centers for nuclear weapons carriers and etc.);
                - pla - to track in readiness to destroy tracked SSBNs and submarine submarines, !!! for tracking and destruction with receiving a signal AVU other large surface carrier ships of nuclear warheads ...
                about plark see above ...
                - BPC (anti-submarine ships) - to combat SSBNs, PLA, diesel submarines (Germany, Sweden, Denmark, France, Italy ...) But! even they were involved in tracking AMG when there was not enough rkb or EM
                Go ahead or believe the word, "Shura"?
                Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                Burrowing yap

                "Yes, Shura. This is not Rio." ... Apparently you really are not an intelligent person. It's a pity...
              5. Strategy
                Strategy 24 March 2013 13: 41 New
                +2
                Quote: BoA KAA
                "Yes, Shura. It's not Rio." ... Apparently you are not really an intelligent person.

                It is not necessary, dear, as they say, toss the beads before the pigs. Yes, and to disclose the contents of the "red books", even if outdated, too. Chatterbox - a find for the spy!
              6. Santa Fe
                24 March 2013 13: 51 New
                0
                Quote: BoA KAA
                1) the aircraft carrier is a strong and dangerous thing; 2) therefore it stood out for all RKR (RCB), PLA (Plark) as the main target in the order.


                Still, 600 + large and small anti-submarine ships, 200 amphibious ships, 9 KIC, 8 SSBN projects, missile and artillery destroyers (etc. 56 and 956) - all this was in no way suitable for fighting aircraft carriers

                Secondly, you need to understand that the US Navy is not only the 10-15 aircraft carrier troughs.
                The American fleet included more than 400 destroyers and anti-submarine frigates, 50 URO cruisers (of which 9 are nuclear), hundreds of supply and support ships, headquarters ships, old artillery cruisers, battleships, and 200 nuclear submarines. Plus the naval forces of NATO, Japan, Australia ...
                Carriers are simply lost in the background of this power.
                Quote: BoA KAA
                But! even they were involved in tracking AMG when there was not enough rkb or EM

                Note - for AMG. And not for an aircraft carrier.
                they watched the American fleet and its allies
                Quote: BoA KAA
                "Yes, Shura. This is not Rio." ... Apparently you really are not an intelligent person. It's a pity...

                Closer to the topic. We are discussing the fleet, and not each other’s personalities.
              7. Boa kaa
                Boa kaa 25 March 2013 03: 49 New
                +2
                Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                Note - for AMG. And not for an aircraft carrier.
                they watched the American fleet and its allies

                The aircraft carrier does not go alone. He walks with the guard ships (travel order).
                If the ORDER of ships without an Aircraft Carrier, then this is no longer AMG, but OBK! Nuance!
                Further. Ships of direct tracking (SPS) have always been indicated by the tracking position relative to the aircraft (on KU = 120-150 * pr / l side). The distance varied, but, as a rule, inside the order of the guard ships. This is mainly for ships with good AU. For rockets - another. Then the KNSs stayed on the radar contact, but with the main goal (AVU), according to which the aircraft carrier was replaced with the established frequency. For guidance boats and MPA. Etc...
                boats were also watching AMG. Secretly and continuously. It was difficult: AMG had a deeply layered PLO. But our commanders managed to emerge from the side of the AVU, and even photograph it as a keepsake (for a report). And since the distance was small, and the entire control unit did not fit into the lens, it was shot in parts ..
                And so much to remember.
                As for personalities, I accept the remark.
              8. Santa Fe
                25 March 2013 14: 16 New
                -1
                Quote: BoA KAA
                The aircraft carrier does not go alone. He walks with the guard ships (travel order).
                If the ORDER of ships without an Aircraft Carrier, then this is no longer AMG, but OBK! Nuance!

                Half of the US Navy goes in the form of AUG
                The other half - in the form of OBK or single ships.
                We followed everyone.

                But much more interesting is the fact that most of the ships of the USSR Navy were completely unsuitable
                to combat aircraft carriers - hundreds of large and small anti-submarine ships, amphibious assault forces, KIC, RPKSN, MRK, cruisers, destroyers and patrol guards were created for completely different purposes.
                Quote: BoA KAA
                Ships of direct tracking (SPS) have always indicated the tracking position relative to the aircraft (on KU = 120-150 * pr / l side)

                Is logical. This is the largest and most contrasting target.
                Quote: BoA KAA
                It was difficult: AMG had a deeply layered PLO

                In peacetime, it did not matter. Soviet IL-38 flew freely near AUG, and Soviet submarines
                circled near the ships of the US Navy. You can’t shoot at them in peacetime, but others
                There are no ways to counter AUG.

                Quote: BoA KAA
                And since the distance was small, and the entire control unit did not fit into the lens, it was shot in parts ..

                good Photo from a Norwegian submarine, but it conveys the scale of the "wunderwaffe"
              9. Santa Fe
                25 March 2013 15: 32 New
                0
                For fans to set minuses for fun and without reason -
                I recommend that you read the Topwar forum section

                http://forum.topwar.ru/topic/3601-%D0%B5%D1%81%D0%BB%D0%B8-%D1%81%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0


                %B7%D0%B8%D0%BB%D1%81%D1%8F-%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%B9%D1%82%D0%B8%D0%BD%D0%B3-%D0%B7%D0


                %B0-%D1%81%D1%83%D1%82%D0%BA%D0%B8-%D0%BD%D0%B0-%D0%BD%D0%B5%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D


                0%BB%D1%8C%D0%BA%D0%BE-%D1%82%D1%8B%D1%81/

                I do not agree - write why. Stupidly minus - kindergarten, laughter and nothing more.
              10. Santa Fe
                25 March 2013 15: 36 New
                -2
                For fans to set minuses for fun and without reason -
                I recommend that you read the Topvar forum section and what troubles the user may have for diligently minus any posts

                http://forum.topwar.ru/topic/3601-%D0%B5%D1%81%D0%BB%D0%B8-%D1%81%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0



                %B7%D0%B8%D0%BB%D1%81%D1%8F-%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%B9%D1%82%D0%B8%D0%BD%D0%B3-%D0%B7%D0



                %B0-%D1%81%D1%83%D1%82%D0%BA%D0%B8-%D0%BD%D0%B0-%D0%BD%D0%B5%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D



                0%BB%D1%8C%D0%BA%D0%BE-%D1%82%D1%8B%D1%81/

                I do not agree - write why. Stupidly minus - kindergarten, laughter and nothing more.
    2. Kaa
      Kaa 24 March 2013 03: 48 New
      -4
      Quote: BoA KAA
      I have the honor.

      An interesting statement. recourse
      "For some reason now the words" I have the honor! " perceived as writing or speaking in the sense that he personally has the honor. Such an impudence would never have been allowed by any Russian officer. To say to oneself that he has the honor is to expose oneself in the most evil light, one might say, to expose oneself to be a fool, an impudent and a boastful. You can also write at the end of the letter: “I have a mind”, “I have a conscience”, “I have money”, “I have a wife” ... Why this pathos praising my own self? Does anyone have anything? Why brag about it? In a conversation or in a letter, officers used to say: “I have the honor to introduce myself,” “I have the honor to leave”, etc. That is, the phrase had the exact opposite meaning: a person had the honor of being introduced to another, had the honor of meeting one or another person ... that is, for him, the author of these words, it was an honor to meet or say goodbye to another. And now for some reason, the military and the Cossacks decided at the end of the letter to put the completely wild phrase “I have honor” ...
      Nobody actually asked about his honor. Well, you have, so have a good health, why show off your honor? Who knows what? And what, is it mandatory to write about all this at the end of the letter? For example, I have a good ear, someone has antique furniture, someone has an ulcer, a powerful force or a beautiful lover ... Abramovich has no honor, but he has money ... And most importantly: if a person has an honor, then one must demonstrate its presence by deed, and not by boasting about its presence. Moreover, the words “I have an honor” should be appreciated more by others, and not by myself.
      I have a summer house laughing
      Your Denis Alekseevich Danilets, Barnaul.
      PS Yes, I forgot to add: I have the honor to write a letter to your editorial office! "
      http://www.cirota.ru/forum/view.php?subj=63887&fullview=1&order=
      Something my odnogvamilets did not freeze ...
    3. Strategy
      Strategy 24 March 2013 13: 55 New
      0
      Quote: Kaa
      Something my odnogvamilets did not freeze ...

      He did not freeze anything. He replied with dignity to an amateur who read books.
    4. postman
      postman 26 March 2013 11: 34 New
      0
      A. I have an "answer" earned.
      the first "-" was mine (tabloid error, I don’t know how to remove it))
      But he (kaa) about the "honor I have" wrote everything correctly.
      we are all according to V. Pikul, about the appendix "I have the honor" we judge. and Vedb is a literature.

      I wonder why the other three (except mine) flew in?
      Threat. so I pissed you off. bad example oh how contagious ....
  • Andrey77
    Andrey77 22 March 2013 12: 01 New
    +1
    I listened to the broadcast "Garrison" on the radio (I no longer remember who was speaking, someone from the command of the Navy). The USSR Navy was really the second, and now the Russian Navy is about 6-7 (we are not in the top five). The USA, China, India, Turkey are definitely overtaking. Ukraine gave a lot, which they irrevocably cheated ...
    1. leon-iv
      leon-iv 22 March 2013 12: 50 New
      +1
      radio Keep the broadcast "Garrison"
      Was there a comrade with the CAST?
      If you take the general fleet, then yes. We have a fleet from the USSR For the battle with NK, it’s also imprisoned for trapping submarines.
      1. Andrey77
        Andrey77 22 March 2013 13: 19 New
        0
        Hold http://www.radiovesti.ru/articles/2012-07-22/fm/58299
    2. Bronis
      Bronis 22 March 2013 13: 18 New
      +3
      Quote: Andrey77
      Ukraine gave a lot, which they irrevocably cheated ...
      Alas, we squandered, alas, more. From ships of the first rank Ukraine got what was not completed. The division of the Black Sea Fleet of the USSR on the naval composition occurred, in general, in favor of Russia, although it did not weakly hit. But yourself ... Where is "Kiev", "Minsk" and "Novorossiysk"? The first two are now floating rides, the third went on needles. "Gorshkova" to the Indians ... All "Pike" to RTMK - were written off before the beginning of the 2000's. 949 “Granite” was cut with the money of Western friends (as well as a significant number of “Pike” and other nuclear submarines).
      TAKRA brought to the reserve.
      Yes, we couldn’t pull all this in 90. But they could mothballed properly the same carrier cruisers ...
      The Navy's missile aircraft, in fact, are no longer there.
      The topic is painful. And to fix all this earlier than in 20-30 years will not work.
  • Drosselmeyer
    Drosselmeyer 22 March 2013 12: 22 New
    +1
    Actually, now the French attribute their fleet to the second in the world, after the Americans.
    1. Bronis
      Bronis 22 March 2013 12: 51 New
      +3
      I don’t know how they thought and for what purposes. 1 aircraft carrier, 2 or 3 UDC, about 20 frigates (however, up to a dozen of them can be classified as destroyers - displacement greater than 6000 tons). 6 "Ryubi" and 4 "Triumph". A good balanced European fleet, which France needs. But to call him second in the world is incorrect.
      949And to help them ... winked
    2. leon-iv
      leon-iv 22 March 2013 12: 55 New
      +1
      lol what? even though the frogs will become they and the first write. Although their horizons are interesting.
      1. Bronis
        Bronis 22 March 2013 13: 48 New
        0
        Quote: leon-iv
        Although their horizons are interesting.
        On them, it seems, "Aster" - in the number of 50 pcs. - So the frigate air defense. The ship is specialized.
        1. leon-iv
          leon-iv 22 March 2013 15: 58 New
          0
          "Aster" - in the quantity of 50 pcs. - So the frigate air defense. The ship is specialized.
          This is exactly what a purely order ship will be good for covering the Mistral
  • Delta
    Delta 22 March 2013 12: 52 New
    +4
    But what does it matter in the age of nuclear weapons? A direct military conflict between the developed powers threatens to inevitably develop into a global war with the destruction of all human civilization. And what's the difference, what ended the battle between Chinese and American aircraft carriers, if nuclear warheads have already fallen to Beijing and Washington?

    Perfectly! We no longer produce tanks, planes, ships and other weapons. We will leave the machines for the police. Oleg told you this, and he has authority ... there ... at home laughing
    1. Santa Fe
      22 March 2013 14: 03 New
      +1
      Quote: Delta
      Perfectly! We no longer produce tanks, planes, ships and other weapons.

      I didn’t say such a thing, you invented it yourself
      The article was about the futility of the pursuit of the number of ships of the US Navy.

      15 vs 84 looks bad, but it couldn’t be otherwise. We will never succeed in building a fleet equal to the US Navy on our own. It’s IMPOSSIBLE to build such a fleet, without driving the whole world into bondage.

      Incredible US Navy was built on an unpaid loan


      On the other hand, even 100 Burke destroyers do not pose a direct threat to Continental Russia in the age of nuclear weapons. A dozen SSBNs are enough to neutralize the entire US Navy - a mutually assured destruction will stop any enemy.

      Finally, to fulfill most of the tasks facing the Russian Navy - participation in international operations (clearance of the Suez Canal or Chittagong Bay); protection of territorial waters (displacement of the cruiser "Yorktown"); search and rescue operations (rescue crew "Alpha-Foxtrot 586" or search for landing capsules of spacecraft splashed in the Indian Ocean) - for all this, a fleet of 84 cruisers and destroyers is unnecessary

      Fifteen to twenty ships in the far sea zone and hundreds of anti-submarine / patrol aircraft are enough. The Russian economy (as well as most countries) will not be able to do more than that — they will have to get into debt.
      1. Strategy
        Strategy 24 March 2013 14: 02 New
        +1
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        I didn’t say such a thing, you invented it yourself

        He spoke, only in other words - the meaning is as follows. But Khrushchev has already been in our history, still the tricks of this "reformer" are affecting. You also have the last argument - nuclear weapons (especially for you - nuclear weapons). By the way, not responding to forums is impolite of you.
  • Andrey77
    Andrey77 22 March 2013 13: 23 New
    0
    I suggest listening to an interview with Ostapenko’s caperang. Here is a direct link to Vesti FM - http://www.radiovesti.ru/articles/2012-07-22/fm/58299
    Click listen - listen.
  • Pacifist
    Pacifist 22 March 2013 14: 05 New
    +1
    Well, the opinion of the author of the article is understandable. You can agree, you can argue, but the position is indicated and quite competent ... I can’t understand one thing ... why can’t you convert Sharks into carriers of the Kyrgyz Republic and RCC ... can you imagine the power of a volley? The 6th fleet will shave off the surface along with the entire air defense / missile defense system ... and given the salvo range ... you can especially not substituting to keep them in constant voltage. Why they don’t do this, I don’t understand ... The boats have not yet developed a resource ...
    1. Santa Fe
      22 March 2013 14: 14 New
      0
      Quote: Pacifist
      I can’t understand one thing ... why it is impossible to convert Sharks into carriers of the Kyrgyz Republic and RCC ..

      The idea has been voiced for a long time.
      In terms of efficiency, of course, it will be inferior to Ohio (after all, an American, with the same armament, less than three times less), but cutting titanium giants is more expensive for herself.

      Everything depends on money and time - if the 16000-ton Borey built 16 years, then how many years will upgrade the 50 000 ton Shark?
      1. leon-iv
        leon-iv 22 March 2013 15: 59 New
        0
        but cutting titanium giants is more expensive.
        And the price of modernization thereof?
        1. Santa Fe
          22 March 2013 18: 18 New
          0
          Quote: leon-iv
          And the price of modernization thereof?

          The price of building new?
      2. saturn.mmm
        saturn.mmm 22 March 2013 20: 25 New
        +1
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        The idea has been voiced for a long time.

        Well, in the first ave. 941 "Shark" steel.
        Secondly, unlike the Ohio in the Shark, you can place cruise missiles on two floors and you get a carrier with 240 cruise missiles, agree that it will look impressive.
        Everything depends on money and time - if the 16000-ton Borey built 16 years, then how many years will upgrade the 50 000 ton Shark?
        Everything rests on my mind
        -And who needs it, nobody needs it.
        1. Santa Fe
          22 March 2013 21: 03 New
          0
          Quote: saturn.mmm
          Well, in the first ave. 941 "Shark" steel.

          The strong case - from the titan. Lightweight - steel.
          Quote: saturn.mmm
          in the "Shark" you can place cruise missiles on two floors and get a carrier with 240 cruise missiles, agree that it will look impressive.

          It is possible in three. If you find a way to reload missile silos underwater
          Quote: saturn.mmm
          -And who needs it, nobody needs it.

          To some extent, yes, I agree


          Anchor "Sharks", Severodvinsk
          1. saturn.mmm
            saturn.mmm 22 March 2013 22: 47 New
            0
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            The strong case - from the titan. Lightweight - steel.

            It’s not quite titanium anymore. But this is indicated in Internet sources, not only on Wikipedia, but I had doubts after that
            atalef you know, I'm not a nationalist, but the omniscience of "your" nation is tired.
            If your father was a submariner then he should have told you that the Sharks were never titanium.
            I don’t know what you saw, but I’ll answer so that when the missiles were disposed of in 2001 by blasting when 12 missiles were launched, then the observers from America very quickly went to their cabin, since the Americans did not achieve such reliability until now.
            they have a crew with a smaller size of 180 people, in contrast to the 170 shark crew.
            In terms of noise, the TK-20 at the time of the descent was close to Ohio, and then the lack of repair led to its growth.
            The competition between BDRMi and Sharks had a great impact on the fate of sharks, so as the fate of which ships to decide at that time was decisive, a strong role was played by the fleet commanders coming from dpl bdrm. Moreover, since 1997, all division commanders have been temporary workers - newcomers and they were on them
            that’s why we have ships that we designed in the 60s, and we cut the fresher first of all to the “patriots” of the Bdrm; your ship is all that could be squeezed out of azuha.

            Quote: andreitk20
            atalef you know, I'm not a nationalist, but the omniscience of "your" nation is tired.
            If your father was a submariner then he should have told you that the Sharks were never titanium.
            Durable cases are made of titanium alloys, lightweight - steel, covered with a non-resonant anti-radar and soundproof rubber coating with a total weight of 800 tons [2
            This is where we end.
            And then I really have to your knowledge.
            Maybe they were rubber * All the same 800 t rubber
            Perhaps I would have agreed only I served on them from 1994 to 2005, you confuse titanium ships that are 705, 945, 661 projects and that's it. A sturdy case made of the same alloys as the steel of the third generation


            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            It is possible in three. If you find a way to reload missile silos underwater

            Three will not work in height will not enter, an engineering solution can be found. If it’s noticeable, then two cassettes are one above the other in the mine, after the missiles exit, the upper cassette is fired off and the lower cassette rises in its place.
            The destruction of the Sharks, this is the final victory of the Americans in the Cold War
      3. postman
        postman 26 March 2013 11: 45 New
        0
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        In terms of efficiency, of course, Ohio will be inferior

        1) And what about the life cycle? Didn't go out all?
        2) Is there a worthy candidate for the Kyrgyz Republic with acceptable TTKhZ and weight and overall characteristics? Given the start-up conditions?
  • ruton
    ruton 22 March 2013 14: 39 New
    0
    And the adversaries are not asleep no
    22.03.2013 US Navy Unveils 5 Summer Shipbuilding Plan Adjusted as part of Fleet Development Program.

    These data are presented in a new report by the US Congressional Research Service (Navy Force Structure and Shipbuilding Plans: Background and Issues for Congress).

    In January 2013, the Navy submitted to Congress a plan for bringing the fleet numbers up to the 306 ships specifying their types and numbers.

    According to the 5-year shipbuilding plan in fiscal 2013-2017 funding was requested for 41 ships instead of the previously planned 57 ships (28 percent reduction by 16 units).

    According to U.S. military shipbuilding plans in fiscal 2013-2017 the following ships will be built and handed over to the fleet in the next 5th anniversary: ​​one Gerald Ford (CVN-78) heavy nuclear-powered aircraft carrier (ABT), 9 Virginia-type nuclear submarines with missile and torpedo weapons (SSB) (SSN-774) ), 9 destroyers of the Arly Burke type (DDG-51), 16 coastal combat ships of the LCS type (Littoral Combat Ship), one universal amphibious assault ship (UDK) America LHA-6, 2 tugboats, one MLP landing platform (Mobile Landing Platform), one high-speed transport catamaran JHSV (Joint High Speed ​​Vessel), one tanker, a total of 41 ships will be handed over to the fleet, including 2013 units in 10, in 2014 -7 units, in FY2015 - 8 units, in 2016 - 9 units, in 2017 - 7 units.

    You don’t even know. how does this relate .. request
    1. Santa Fe
      22 March 2013 16: 29 New
      -4
      Quote: ruton
      22.03.2013 US Navy Unveils 5 Summer Shipbuilding Plan Adjusted as part of Fleet Development Program.

      Huge plans ... but the reality:

      Lack of Funding Affects USS Lincoln Refueling and Complex Overhaul
      Story Number: NNS130208-17Release Date: 2 / 8 / 2013 4: 14: 00 PM AAA
      From Defense Media Activity - Navy

      The aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln (CVN 72) refueling complex overhaul (RCOH) will not start due to a lack of funding, the Navy said Feb. 8.


      Due to lack of funds, the repair of the Avraam Lincoln aircraft carrier is postponed indefinitely. Currently, an aircraft carrier with a turned deck is moored at the wall in Norfolk.

      cause of the short time available between sequential dockings, the delay will also result in day-for-day impacts to the defueling of the recently inactivated Enterprise (CVN 65) and the start of USS George Washington's (CVN 73) RCOH.

      Also, due to a lack of funds, the disposal of the Enterprise is delayed and the RCOH (overhaul with reloading of the reactor) of the aircraft carrier George Washington is delayed. By the way, even without any delay, RCOH takes at least 3 of the year.
      1. ruton
        ruton 22 March 2013 17: 46 New
        +1
        Yes, to hell with it, with recycling..that it’s not building new ones .. I mean that as they built, they are building .. that's what bothers ...
        In the future, shipbuilding and related programs will experience new financial difficulties due to lack of funding and possible sequestration of the defense budget, which will affect priority programs such as the construction of the nuclear carrier CVN-78, the construction of a nuclear loading complex for nuclear carriers, the destroyer program URO type DDG-51, and the program for the construction of landing ships, funded in previous years
        1. saturn.mmm
          saturn.mmm 22 March 2013 22: 10 New
          0
          Quote: ruton
          and possible sequestration of the defense budget,

          The Americans announced that sequestration in the military sphere will only concern the reduction of expenditures on Afghanistan and Iraq from 80 billion to 30, will save 50, which is 80% of the total Russian, these are the paradoxes.
  • common man
    common man 22 March 2013 16: 32 New
    +2
    I noticed that the United States has recently been developing and actively promoting non-nuclear methods of warfare. And the scenario here can be quite simple. We, in the sense of the United States, do not want a nuclear war. We are already strong enough. The main enemy of the world community is Russia. She wants to destroy the whole world in a nuclear fire. By the way, it’s exactly this opinion that any person will come to after reading the comments on our website. Two superpowers, Russia and the United States argue and share something, and die in the event of a nuclear war EVERYTHING humanity. On this postulate is formed WORLDWIDE a negative attitude towards Russia as an outcast country that must be isolated and forced to destroy the strategic nuclear forces by non-military means. Of course, we can send everyone to hell by frightening us again with a nuclear bomb, only this is unlikely to help. The world is too dependent on each other. And living with the idea that everyone hates you is somehow uncomfortable.
    Why am I talking all this? In addition to the fact that it is precisely non-nuclear weapons that need to be developed, both naval and land and air forces. To be able to protect their homeland and stay alive, if not for everyone, but wives, children, mothers. I think you understand me. In the end, Georgia was forced into the world not by a nuclear bomb, but by tanks, machine guns, helicopters. And the atomic bomb, as they say, "The last argument of the kings." And you can’t forget about him either. Something like that.
    1. Andrey77
      Andrey77 22 March 2013 19: 15 New
      +2
      Everyman, the idea is clear. But the United States has not abandoned nuclear weapons. Having nuclear weapons they do not use it? And what from this? In Afghanistan, we did not use the same thing (although we could have stopped the hemp crop for 100 years with one TACTICAL bomb).
      1. common man
        common man 22 March 2013 20: 16 New
        0
        That is exactly what I wanted to say. The USSR had an army armed with appropriate equipment, capable wage a non-nuclear war. And very successful. And now many are arguing why we need conventional weapons if there are mega bombs. Let them just turn up, we will immediately cover them with a thermonuclear package. I consider this a mistake.
        Botanologist. Be sure if they wanted, they would be easy to upgrade. ABM is much more expensive, but there is money and resources for it. The world's largest economy cannot be underestimated.
    2. Botanologist
      Botanologist 22 March 2013 19: 38 New
      +1
      The United States has recently been developing and aggressively promoting non-nuclear methods of warfare.

      Their strategic forces have not been upgraded for 20 for years, and the shelf life is ending ... But there’s not enough money to deploy a new program without completing f-35 request .
      So there is only one way out - to take off duty and under the knife. But they don’t admit that the bankrupt are trying to justify themselves by peacefulness wassat .
      In short, a very useful aircraft f-35, buried all plans of the Pentagon, not even having time to take off belay
      The deadliest weapon of the century lol
  • Gari
    Gari 22 March 2013 16: 56 New
    +1
    The modern Russian Navy is gradually increasing its presence in the oceans, the number of ship exits to the far zone is increasing every year, the St. Andrew flag is increasingly proudly flying over the waters of the Mediterranean and world oceans.
    as of February 2013, the Russian Navy included 47 surface warships of the first and second rank of the far sea zone, which are capable of performing tasks anywhere in the world’s oceans. Over the past 2 years (from January 2011 to January 2013), of the 47 pennants, 28 carried out military services and carried out long trips to the Atlantic, Indian and Pacific Oceans, conducted exercises in the waters of the Arctic and the Mediterranean Sea, and about 10 more ships are regularly involved in tasks. participate in naval maneuvers, practice elements of combat training in training ranges. Based on this, it is clear that about 75-80% of the main ships of the Navy are in the campaign, I would like to note that even 7-8 years ago such indicators in the Navy did not exist.
  • Gari
    Gari 22 March 2013 16: 59 New
    0
    According to various sources in the General Staff of the Russian Armed Forces, in 2013 the Russian Navy will continue to carry out missions in the Mediterranean Sea and other parts of the oceans. In addition, it is planned that the Navy ships will participate in 10 joint exercises with the foreign Navy. Also, in order to increase the operational and tactical training of the fleet, its ships and formations, large-scale exercises will be held.
    I would like to note that now at the shipbuilding enterprises 2 classes of ships of the far sea zone are being built — patrol ships of project 11356 and frigates of project 22350. In 2014, the lead ships of these projects are expected to enter the fleet. We can confidently say that new ships in the future will replace their predecessors, and the St. Andrew flag will proudly fly over all the seas and oceans, once again proving to everyone that Russia is a Great Sea Power!
    1. Andrey77
      Andrey77 22 March 2013 19: 19 New
      +1
      All this is very cool, but the ships of the DCBF are on the joke due to the incompetent operation of the machines. ALL require repair according to the warhead-5. Missiles, computers - everything is in order. We cannot give a move.
  • Yapatriot
    Yapatriot 22 March 2013 17: 08 New
    0
    if war breaks out in an hour and a half, there will be no war or peace
  • washi
    washi 22 March 2013 17: 55 New
    0
    The first to apply nuclear weapons will not be. Of course paradise and the gurus, but for the righteous who perished. (It concerns not only Muslims)
    I do not know those who want to destroy the planet, so the wars will be waged by ordinary means. And for this we need both a fleet and aviation and a trained reserve.
    1. Andrey77
      Andrey77 22 March 2013 19: 35 New
      0
      But nuclear weapons should not be reduced. It is clear to everyone that no one will start the Apocalypse, but nobody wants to cut nuclear weapons.
  • SuperVodka777
    SuperVodka777 22 March 2013 18: 11 New
    0
    Already 3 Boreas on the water by the way and Vikramadatya completed, the data in the article is clearly outdated.
    1. Andrey77
      Andrey77 22 March 2013 19: 31 New
      0
      On the water? Not even funny.
  • Eugene
    Eugene 22 March 2013 19: 29 New
    0
    It’s interesting to see the naval battle in August the eighth. I recommend it. There are videos on YouTube.
    1. Andrey77
      Andrey77 22 March 2013 20: 10 New
      0
      Why watch there? Already everyone looked for a long time. If there are new frames - lay out.
      1. Eugene
        Eugene 22 March 2013 22: 33 New
        0
        I agree. Once I saw the video shot in the Caesar’s engine room .. It seems. At the time of the attack. I liked it even more than the cartoon Vesti. Poshukayte. Nothing special, like a watch like a watch, but it's still cool. Now sometimes.
  • Avenger711
    Avenger711 22 March 2013 20: 32 New
    -1
    Kaptsov such Kaptsov ...
  • sergius60
    sergius60 22 March 2013 22: 13 New
    +2
    Everyone somehow focused on the number of keels, but did not pay attention at all to the MEANS OF DAMAGE AND OPPOSITION. Comparing the Navy of the USSR and the Russian Navy, as if the current did not turn out to be "fitter". I mean, the fleet as a system for collecting and processing information, target designation, and counteraction to those of the enemy. Very "rushing" to share information about the possibilities of the OPPOSITION, but - "nafig, nafig." So that "do not shit" the Slavs. If you used to pray for the "dryness of gunpowder", now - "God save us from breakdown in the circuit." Be-hinting.
  • spravochnik
    spravochnik 22 March 2013 23: 00 New
    0
    Bullshit, not an article.
    As for Russia, we are a primordially “land” power. I always suggest looking at the map and comparing the length of the sea and land borders of Russia.
  • spravochnik
    spravochnik 22 March 2013 23: 53 New
    +4
    The nuclear submarines pr.941 have strong hulls (and there are as many as 5) STEEL, and have never been titanium. Of the titanium in the fleet, only 4 nuclear submarines, etc. 945. And the author wants to ask a question. The Japanese want to recapture the Kuril Islands (they pump up their fleet in full, the Russian Pacific Ocean was not standing next to the Japanese) and what, will we immediately wet the nuclear weapons? And aircraft carriers are needed. In the ocean, without air cover, neither NK nor the submarine DO NOTHING.
  • ABV
    ABV 23 March 2013 02: 19 New
    +1
    Here someone (on the site in earlier comments on the articles) complained that the rust on our ships was peeking in some places ...
    Look at the photo of the American "handsome" ---
    USS Essex (LHD-2) - a versatile landing ship type "Uosp" !!!
  • postman
    postman 23 March 2013 07: 29 New
    +2
    The author’s strange approach to the goals and objectives of the Navy as well as to nuclear weapons (and its “ease” of use)
    1. How the presence of a nuclear club can explain the following facts:
    On June 1, 1990, an Agreement was signed between the USSR and the USA on the line for the delineation of sea spaces, according to which the part of the USSR's exclusive economic zone and the continental shelf area of ​​46,3 thousand square kilometers in the open central part of the Bering Sea and the USA territorial waters in a small area in the Bering Strait between the islands of Ratmanov (Russia) and Kruzenshtern (USA).
    In 1997, Russia ratified the 1982 Convention on the Law of the Sea, renouncing special rights to possess in the Arctic, renouncing sovereign rights to 1,7 million km² of its Arctic sector.

    Well, yes EBN and his team ...
    But the ongoing demarcation is the essence of territorial concessions to China?
    prim The Republic of China (NOT PRC!), located on the island of Taiwan, claims to be the historical region of Tannu-Uryanhai (Republic of Tuva)
    2. Nevertheless, the fleet (Navy) is better to compare by specific indicator (reduced to the number of inhabitants or to the sea borders).
    For reference:
    The land border is 22 125 km (including 7616 km along rivers and lakes).
    The length of the sea borders of Russia is 38 807 km.
    What place in the world will be?
  • Mikola
    Mikola 23 March 2013 13: 30 New
    -3
    Hmm, Oleg Kaptsov clearly suffers from soviet disease. He constantly writes about the inefficiency of the American Navy. But this “ineffective” fleet solved the tasks set for it - it supplanted Russian interests from Yugoslavia, Iraq, Lebanon and is now systematically crowding out from Syria. And how can submarines help Russian interests here ?! smile More than a hundred years ago, in the distant 194, the Russian Empire had the third fleet in the world, and such Kartsovs threatened to throw hats on the samurai. Does everyone remember the result of its use in Tsushima, or does Oleg Kaptsov not teach history? smile And then and now the Russian fleet was large, but outdated and not effective. And the American fleet is balanced and modern. Kaptsov compares not comparable. The Chinese, for example, are developing their fleet in the American style, focusing on surface ships and in particular aircraft carriers, for which Kaptsov is mentally allergic smile In general, I'm not interested here. It is only interesting to read the history of the fleet; everything else looks like agitation of a scoop - which is all bad in the West and in the world.
    1. Delta
      Delta 23 March 2013 23: 45 New
      -1
      Quote: Mikola
      for which Kaptsov has a mental allergy

      laughing
    2. postman
      postman 26 March 2013 10: 23 New
      0
      Quote: Mikola
      Hmm, Oleg Kaptsov clearly suffers from soviet disease. He constantly writes about the inefficiency of the American Navy.

      Right?
      According to Kaptsov, there would be no bubbles left from the 3rd Reich fleet. And pellets of the Tirpitz type, even from the slipways, would be afraid to get off if the Americans, and not the British, took up them ...
      Quote: Mikola
      ousted Russian interests from Yugoslavia, Iraq, Lebanon

      there they (interests), like the fleet, have never been.
      Quote: Mikola
      More than a hundred years ago, back in 194, the Russian Empire had the third fleet in the world

      1904?
      probably?
      Did not have! with the 3rd fleet of the world they don’t lose to a country that ONLY at the end of the (very) XNUMXth century recognized steam and steam. This does not happen.
      FOR REFERENCE: Russia, in fact, the only empire that LOSED (what a sin) the Navy (landing on the territory of the metropolis): Sevastopol.
      and you can pour me with slops (although in vain, I have great prades to the cemetery from there) - but this is a fact.
      Or I'm wrong?
      Quote: Mikola
      Hmm,. It is only interesting to read the history of the fleet; everything else looks like agitation of a scoop - which is all bad in the West and in the world.

      ??
      an interesting conclusion from Kaptsov's articles .....
      I thought all the same.

      KAPTSOV - a question: are you a Cheka agitator or something?
  • Boa kaa
    Boa kaa 24 March 2013 01: 45 New
    +2
    Quote: Vanek
    The Russian Navy is able to do everything (or almost everything) that the fleet should do in peacetime. And more actually is not necessary.

    This is a profound error. Peacetime is given to prepare for a future (and not past!) War, as we have had.
    For confrontation in a future war, ships of the future are needed. Our enemy is sea, as land without amers will not jerk. And what, do you want to stop him again at the walls of Moscow? It might be better to sink the “people carrying democracy” upon leaving Norfolk or, in extreme cases, on the passage by sea. BUT?
    The article is empty, lightweight. There is a statement of facts lying on the surface. Personal position of the author: yes, we have an old fleet, weaker than the US one, but it suits us, because we will fight on land. Let them just poke around - there will be enough hats for everyone! You can not do it this way! You won’t get much with one hand.
  • 9064214790
    9064214790 April 2 2013 15: 11 New
    +1
    There is no objection, the United States has the most powerful fleet. But blindly copying American developments, Russia will not achieve parity in the seas and oceans. The fleet is that type of armed forces which in the near future awaits cardinal changes. The fact is that in their mobility, the Navy of almost all countries of the world does not meet the requirements of modern military operations. In addition to this, large warships are an excellent target for the use of modern high-precision weapons. Russia can achieve parity through asymmetric actions, through the creation of strategic oceanic aviation, namely, seaplanes and ekranoletov with a high degree of autonomy and flight range. The division of such aircraft will nullify the whole advantage of the Americans in the ocean.
  • Patriot8482
    Patriot8482 4 June 2013 17: 44 New
    0
    I don’t remember who said it, but the meaning is: "The presence of tactical nuclear weapons multiplies all non-nuclear weapons of war by 0"
    So do not flog a fever, about the US fleet, our fleet will not fight them, but it will cope with others.
    Of course, new ships are needed, but not in such quantities.