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)

Our news channels

Subscribe and stay up to date with the latest news and the most important events of the day.

117 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +25
    22 March 2013 08: 23
    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. +8
      22 March 2013 08: 52
      Naive reasoning that our nuclear club is the guarantor of security. A war, if it starts, will begin with the use of conventional weapons. But their presence, their readiness will determine whether nuclear weapons will be used in the future. YAO is the last trump card, which can really be the last. Yes, we do not need "suckers" to demonstrate their power to the Papuans. But we need ships and aircraft to protect our seas and shores.
      1. Goga
        +10
        22 March 2013 09: 47
        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
          +1
          April 5 2013 05: 16
          But a friend who is interested in military topics told me that Japan builds a cruiser a year (at least) - and calls them after the heroes of Tsushima. And in our "Texas" there is, again by analogy, the cruiser "Varyag" produced in 1976, and the former aircraft carrier "Frunze" on self-repair at the base wall. And a couple of destroyers, of which one is in combat readiness, and that's all we have in the Pacific Ocean, as one of the officers there told me 4 years ago (though from the junior staff).
          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. +6
        22 March 2013 10: 00
        We will not dissemble, gentlemen, but this war is already underway, just not in the format that many imagine. That is, without using weapons. A new type of weapon used by adversaries is electronic, media, that is, the Internet. Pink and orange revolutions, swamp technologies in action. And our fifth column helps to rock the boat named Russia. The only problem is that they themselves can drown, from overestimating their strengths and capabilities. And then these Nemtsov Kasyanovs will rot, in the backyards of Europe, like unnecessary trash. An example of this BAB, went around the world with outstretched hand. I am afraid that you should not underestimate the enemy, otherwise you may not need the entire fleet and all the power of nuclear weapons. After all, there is nothing worse when the enemy is at the gates, and behind the gates this enemy has his own people, ready to open the gates. If they open these "gates" of Russia, then I am afraid the Pandora's box will be opened.
        1. -12
          22 March 2013 12: 21
          If the boat is rocked heavily, then Kakraz Putin will leave the hill for his entire retinue.
          1. 0
            22 March 2013 18: 50
            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
          -5
          23 March 2013 12: 51
          The goal of the Orange Revolution was fair elections and fair judges in the country and the fight against government corruption. For you, this is the enemy "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. +5
            24 March 2013 10: 14
            Undoubtedly, the most effective tool for personal development is ukrsayt. Horrible power!
          2. seafarer
            +3
            April 14 2013 21: 28
            Personal development on "ukrsaytah" (in any case - those that you, Mikola, mean) is impossible in principle. It is useful for a linguist to visit them - to collect data like a Western Ukrainian surzhik distorts the Russian and Ukrainian languages, for a psychiatrist - for linguoanalysis of pathological persons and, probably, a toxicologist - to collect poisonous saliva that oozes from each line.
            There are not many normal Ukrainian sites, but even on them discussion of any topic will be fouled by "unresponsive 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 remember Ukraine before 2004 and after: 1998-2003, the annual GDP growth is 16-20%. In 2005 - only 4%. In 2006, they began to take onerous loans from the IMF. It was the "maydanuts" that finally buried the CIS. And the shooting of professionals-statesmen: the former Minister of Transport G. Kirpa, the former Minister of the Ministry of Internal Affairs Kravchenko - "suicide" with two shots, one of which demolishes half a skull, and the second - a control in the back of the head. And how many were dismissed from service on the basis of the descriptive lists? The famous phrase of Paul I "We do not need smart, we need the faithful" was brought to life with the small-town Khorunzhev grotesque: instead of professionals came "Svidomo sycophants" and dropouts - "Maidan field commanders". Can you remember the lawlessness on the roads in 2005? Or a doubling of the dollar? However, you will hardly be able to prove anything.
            For people who are at least a little inclined to an unbiased analysis have long understood that the "orange revolution" is the next stage in the development of imperialist aggression aimed at further weakening the main geopolitical enemy - Russia.
          3. Misantrop
            +1
            April 14 2013 22: 04
            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. +4
        22 March 2013 10: 15
        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 "suckers" 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. +4
        22 March 2013 18: 12
        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. 0
        7 August 2017 16: 20
        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
      -6
      22 March 2013 11: 23
      Learn materiel !!! Thalasocracy and telulocracy. Read more about strategic initiatives. Horror! Spend time on such a site and don’t know basic things .....
      1. +1
        22 March 2013 11: 31
        Quote: Nesvet Nezarya
        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
      -2
      22 March 2013 15: 53
      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
        +7
        23 March 2013 07: 20
        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 km.
    4. Cosmonaut
      +1
      22 March 2013 17: 34
      In my opinion, the essence of the article is that our fleet, sorry, is rusty and that something needs to be done.
  2. +14
    22 March 2013 08: 41
    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. +5
      22 March 2013 10: 15
      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. +1
        22 March 2013 13: 44
        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
          -2
          26 March 2013 10: 55
          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 for how much (and most importantly, how 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
            0
            26 March 2013 11: 06
            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. +4
    22 March 2013 08: 42
    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
    +1
    22 March 2013 08: 48
    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. +9
      22 March 2013 09: 10
      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 is a sufficient number of ships with the forces and means to counter the enemy. Sounds somewhat blurry. But it can be seen from the same Syria ... This does not mean that we should build a fleet larger than that of the United States, but should strive to create several modern and sufficiently powerful naval groupings. Now, unfortunately, the fleet is built on the principle of "use what is left". And we 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. +4
        22 March 2013 09: 56
        Georgia hoped that Russia would be scared of mattress makers - it was not scared, the "powerful navy" of Georgia received the full program. First of all, it is probably still necessary to restore the Black Sea Fleet, so that the Turks do not even have a thought about a new Ottoman Empire, and so that the newly-made sycophants of mattress makers in the person of Romania and Bulgaria sit and do not bark in their ports. The Caspian flotilla should also be a priority - Inan launched a "destroyer" in the Caspian on copper, although he is far from a normal destroyer, but the real enemy for this ship can only be the ships of the Russian Navy in the Caspian, so conclusions must be drawn hi
      2. +2
        22 March 2013 10: 04
        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
      +1
      April 14 2013 21: 44
      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
    0
    22 March 2013 09: 26
    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. +1
      22 March 2013 13: 31
      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. +1
      22 March 2013 19: 56
      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
    +1
    22 March 2013 09: 28
    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. 0
      22 March 2013 10: 06
      Follow the link. http://wedun26.livejournal.com/9548.html
      1. +3
        22 March 2013 13: 04
        Why walk? Infa a little outdated since then
    2. postman
      0
      26 March 2013 11: 16
      Quote: Nikolko
      how many and nearly 300 ships we have

      of 277
      / clickable /
  7. Akim
    +3
    22 March 2013 09: 29
    Russian naval forces are scattered across 4 fleets. And if you compare with the Chinese ...
    1. 0
      22 March 2013 12: 48
      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
        +2
        22 March 2013 13: 12
        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. +3
          22 March 2013 13: 30
          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
            +1
            22 March 2013 13: 39
            Ust with them and with ballistic and cruise missiles
            1. +3
              22 March 2013 13: 50
              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. +1
            23 March 2013 17: 29
            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. +2
        22 March 2013 13: 51
        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. 0
          22 March 2013 15: 57
          Why does China need a fleet to attack Russia
          I don’t understand why China is attacking?
          1. 0
            22 March 2013 18: 00
            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
              -4
              22 March 2013 19: 10
              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. 0
                22 March 2013 22: 15
                Islands of Japan if you do not understand.
        2. 0
          23 March 2013 17: 30
          there are no roads to Kamchatka with smokers
      3. postman
        0
        26 March 2013 11: 24
        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
          +1
          26 March 2013 11: 30
          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 /
          =====================
          "coefficient of forces of constant readiness - KSPG" - an indicator reflecting the proportion of combat readiness in the total number of forces and means of the fleet.

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

          CHINA (below), RF (was higher)
    2. kursantosha
      0
      23 March 2013 22: 29
      Nice to go
  8. +3
    22 March 2013 09: 40
    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. +9
    22 March 2013 09: 50
    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. +2
      22 March 2013 11: 31
      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. 0
        22 March 2013 19: 46
        Boats can shoot directly from the pier. So sleep well at the expense of the strategic nuclear forces. Forming factions? Against who? Does it make sense to control the Strait of Aden by stupidly clearing out the "pirates"? I think no. The game is not worth the candle. The Americans would have cleaned them all up long ago.
      2. seafarer
        0
        April 14 2013 22: 05
        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 how where, but in the 80s there was no normal deployment at the Pacific Fleet, as well as repairs. Excellent ships - TAKRs "Minsk" and "Novorossiysk" were ditched by standing on raid barrels. As a result, for 5 years "Novorossitsk" has developed the resource of the main boilers. And the picture is the same throughout Primorye. And what about repairs at Dalzavod or Chazhma? After the repair, the ship's condition is worse than before it was put into the plant.
        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 won't be enough money for that. The USSR, by the way, did not have enough.
  10. +6
    22 March 2013 09: 58
    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. -1
    22 March 2013 10: 05
    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. +3
      22 March 2013 10: 08
      Tear ass and build in packs, as well as restore what was built before us and poher
    2. +3
      22 March 2013 11: 45
      SIBIR38RUS "Gradually and slowly build - we are even more behind then. Conclusion: What will we do then?"
      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. 0
    22 March 2013 10: 07
    PS I really hope for our early advantage in multipurpose submarines and SSBNs. Give more Boreev and Ashen! :)
    1. 0
      22 March 2013 10: 23
      And also Grachenkov and Sirens (a joke)
  13. 0
    22 March 2013 10: 18
    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. 0
      22 March 2013 12: 09
      We have a wonderful lighter carrier Sevmorput with excellent modernization potential. Can be almost anything fantasy desires. By the way, he has good structural protection in the form of an ice belt (almost an armor belt)
  14. Heccrbq
    0
    22 March 2013 11: 11
    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 "scattered" from the Forbes list will have the same desires, and this is already fantastic.
  15. 0
    22 March 2013 11: 32
    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. +5
    22 March 2013 11: 48
    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
      -1
      23 March 2013 05: 25
      TA does not give? !!! For a long time inclined in a pose - if only there was a desire
  17. +4
    22 March 2013 12: 00
    "will attack sunny Magadan?"

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


    The third article from this aFtor and the same phrases. to comment already laziness.
    1. +5
      22 March 2013 12: 25
      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. -1
        22 March 2013 14: 07
        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 - "aircraft carrier killers" is repeated
        15 missile cruisers against the 90 BOD - enemy submarines were priority, aircraft carriers - pampering, dessert for a snack.
        1. +3
          22 March 2013 17: 55
          Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
          and what status did the remaining 25 divisions and individual brigades of submarines of the USSR Navy receive?

          stop, the situation is repeated with the "Regulus" and not only with them, because as before "not at all" and "it was, but not enough" are 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 weave them here. Because? admit 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. -3
            22 March 2013 18: 13
            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 Soviet commanders, squadron "41 for Freedom"
            1. +2
              22 March 2013 19: 06
              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 will you insert the word "practically" again? so this verbiage is yours, no more.
              1. -2
                22 March 2013 19: 32
                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. +1
                  22 March 2013 20: 11
                  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 Soviet Navy was focused on fighting American nuclear submarines."
                  Will you get out again?

                  Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                  1 division of 25?

                  sure one?
                  1. -2
                    22 March 2013 20: 52
                    Quote: Delta
                    "The entire Soviet Navy was focused on fighting 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 SSGNs for 11 projects. The main strike force of the USSR Navy at sea. Some of these boats were part of the divisions, in the name of which was listed "anti-aircraft" (10th Pacific Fleet or 35th Northern Fleet).

                    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. +1
                      22 March 2013 22: 25
                      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, in the name of which was listed "anti-aircraft" (10th Pacific Fleet or 35th Northern Fleet).

                      but what about "ONE"? and? it turns out - not alone? wink

                      And the conclusion is one and it was not even made by me, but by more competent people who created and operated the Soviet Navy, and it consists in the fact that the fight against AUG played a key role. Anyway, for boats with cruise missiles and multipurpose / torpedo. Hence your conclusion that the aircraft carriers did not divert the forces of the USSR Navy to themselves, and that their share in the arms race was penny. You at least read the memoirs of submariners in order to understand whom they "herded" in the 60-80s. And when the aircraft carriers went to Vietnam, our submarines rushed there too. And the Kitty Hawk later rammed not an underwater launch, but our submarine. And for "America" ​​tracking was constant and on the "Enterprise" many practiced shooting practice.

                      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. -3
                        23 March 2013 00: 09
                        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 at least read the memoirs of submariners in order to understand whom they "herded" in the 60s-80s

                        potential enemy fleet
                        Remember Reagan's 600 Ships Program?
                        Quote: Delta
                        And when the aircraft carriers went to Vietnam, our submarines rushed there. And the tracking of the "America" ​​was constant.

                        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. +3
                        23 March 2013 00: 34
                        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 move out. Kindergarten is simple. And what submarines with cruise missiles could be separate from the Navy? It’s a no brainer that I said that so that you wouldn’t take it into your head to argue with the obvious and say something like "but there were also strategists." But then 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, in fact, you are blown away by what I have declared, and you continue to keep repeating the same thing. According to the principle "I will scatter but I will not submit"
                      3. -2
                        23 March 2013 16: 02
                        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. +1
                        23 March 2013 16: 48
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        the fight against AUG was 10th in importance

                        if you tell me where you got this information from, I'll leave it alone. I will pretend for you personally that you convinced me. In the meantime, you are busy with your conjectures, then this is nothing more than verbiage, fantasies for shkolota. Come on, surprise everyone with the "data" about the 10th place)))) you love numbers and accuracy here so much laughing
                      5. -2
                        23 March 2013 17: 46
                        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. -1
                        23 March 2013 19: 23
                        Quote: Delta
                        Come on, surprise everyone with the "data" about the 10th place)))) you love numbers and accuracy here so much 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 monitoring the situation in all areas of the world ocean (for this purpose, 100 communications ships, large, medium and small reconnaissance ships were allocated). Support for the Soviet Space Program, search for landing stages, telemetry, support for tests of Soviet ICBMs and observation of test launches of a "potential enemy" - nine more ships of the Navy's measuring complex were engaged in this. The apotheosis was the giant atomic SSV-33 "Ural", on the creation of which 18 ministries worked.

                        KIK "Marshal Nedelin"


                        -permanent presence in the ports of African countries (Angola, Mozambique, Libya, Ethiopia, Egypt, etc.), Latin America, Europe and Asia (Vietnam, Bpngladesh, Indonesia, Yemen, the countries of the Warsaw block, the Middle East). "Demonstration of the flag", conducting special operations with a diplomatic bias (demining Suez, Chittagong, humanitarian aid after natural disasters), escorting Soviet and foreign ships in zones of military conflicts, military presence in hot spots, monitoring the course 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. 0
                        23 March 2013 19: 40
                        Well, first of all, you \\\\\\\\. And secondly, if you at least understood what a "key role" is, you would not even undertake to dispute something here. For if at least twenty percent of the available submarines are constantly being monitored, then this is already one of the key roles of the fleet, because the tension was already too great on the submarines so that they were thrown to take a walk behind the aircraft carriers. Thirdly, if you stated (and I said this, too, I REMINDED this to you, you are sick as a memory) that NOBODY in the USSR Navy was engaged in AUGs, and therefore, in principle, aircraft carriers are useless, then I proved the opposite to you. But where are you to admit, you started stupid chatter. Then you started to turn on the back one as usual and quickly look, and what other divisions (after you recklessly declared that one (although you didn't know about this until I started to surprise you) was still called anti-aircraft. And I found it. 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. +1
                        23 March 2013 19: 51
                        Quote: Delta

                        Well, first of all, you are Hamlo. And secondly, if you at least understood what a "key role" is, you would not even undertake to dispute something here. For if at least twenty percent of the available submarines are constantly being monitored, then this is already one of the key roles of the fleet, because the tension was already too great on the submarines so that they were thrown to take a walk behind the aircraft carriers. Thirdly, if you stated (and I said this, too, I REMINDED this to you, you are sick as a memory) that NOBODY in the USSR Navy was engaged in AUGs, and therefore, in principle, aircraft carriers are useless, then I proved the opposite to you. But where are you to admit, you started stupid chatter. Then you started to turn on the back one as usual and quickly look, and what other divisions (after you recklessly declared that one (although you didn't know about this until I started to surprise you) was still called anti-aircraft. And I found it. 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
                        0
                        26 March 2013 10: 32
                        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 "Basics ..." secret,

                        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. 0
                        26 March 2013 18: 06
                        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
                        0
                        27 March 2013 23: 00
                        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?
                      12. +4
                        24 March 2013 02: 55
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN "Now come on, you fucking yap, prove that the fight against ten unfortunate AUGs played a key role."
                        Dear opponent! In the red book "Basics ..." secretly, the fight against the enemy's AMG was the 2nd, after the fight against the SSBN. That's for sure. In a conventional war (without the use of nuclear weapons), they formed the basis of the surface strike forces of the US Navy, and in a nuclear war they were positioned as a reserve for 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.
                      13. -3
                        24 March 2013 03: 06
                        Quote: Boa constrictor KAA
                        In the red book "Basics ..." secretly, the fight against the enemy's AMG was the 2nd, after the fight against the SSBN. That's for sure.

                        Look at this book of course will not succeed
                        Argument not accepted
                        Quote: Boa constrictor 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 constrictor 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
                      14. +3
                        24 March 2013 12: 19
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        Look at this book of course will not succeed

                        Why not! To do this, you need to serve in the navy in certain (not frail) positions, have one form clearance, etc. ... Therefore, as the classic said: "You are not in 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 says that the fleet had only one task: the fight against AVU. Delta and I (2) argued: 1) an aircraft carrier is strong and dangerous; 2) therefore, it was allocated for all RKR (rkb), PLA (plark) as the main target in the order. What the commanders regularly read about in combat orders. This document (and the tasks set in it for the BS, the 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
                        And to list further or take the word, "Shura"?
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        Burrowing yap

                        "Yes, Shura. This is not Rio" ... Apparently you are not really an intelligent person. It's a pity...
                      15. +2
                        24 March 2013 13: 41
                        Quote: Boa constrictor KAA
                        "Yes, Shura. This is not Rio" ... Apparently you are not really an intelligent person

                        It is not worth it, dear, as they say, to throw pearls in front of pigs. And to divulge the content of "red books", even if outdated, too. The chatterbox is a godsend for a spy!
                      16. 0
                        24 March 2013 13: 51
                        Quote: Boa constrictor 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 constrictor 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 constrictor KAA
                        "Yes, Shura. This is not Rio" ... Apparently you are not really an intelligent person. It's a pity...

                        Closer to the topic. We are discussing the fleet, and not each other’s personalities.
                      17. +2
                        25 March 2013 03: 49
                        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.
                      18. -1
                        25 March 2013 14: 16
                        Quote: Boa constrictor 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 constrictor 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 constrictor 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 constrictor 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"
                      19. 0
                        25 March 2013 15: 32
                        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.
                      20. -2
                        25 March 2013 15: 36
                        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.
                      21. Kaa
                        -4
                        24 March 2013 03: 48
                        Quote: Boa constrictor KAA
                        I have the honor.

                        An interesting statement. recourse
                        "For some reason now the words" I have the honor! " perceived by the writer or speaker 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 ...
                      22. 0
                        24 March 2013 13: 55
                        Quote: Kaa
                        Something my odnogvamilets did not freeze ...

                        He did not freeze anything. He replied with dignity to an amateur who read books.
                      23. postman
                        0
                        26 March 2013 11: 34
                        A. my "answer" worked.
                        the first "-" was mine (tabloid error, I don't know how to remove it))
                        but he (kaa) wrote everything right about "the honor".
                        we are all according to V. Pikul, about the addition "I have the honor" judging. and the wedb is literature.

                        I wonder why the other three (except mine) flew in?
                        Threat. so I pissed you off. bad example oh how contagious ....
  18. +1
    22 March 2013 12: 01
    I listened to the program "Garrison" on the radio Vesti (I don't remember who spoke anymore, someone from the command of the Navy). The Soviet Navy was really the second, and now the Russian Navy is about 6-7 (we are not included in the top five). USA, China, India, Turkey are definitely overtaking. Ukraine was given a lot, which they irrevocably lost ...
    1. +1
      22 March 2013 12: 50
      radio 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. 0
        22 March 2013 13: 19
        Hold http://www.radiovesti.ru/articles/2012-07-22/fm/58299
    2. +3
      22 March 2013 13: 18
      Quote: Andrey77
      Ukraine gave a lot, which they irrevocably cheated ...
      We ourselves have squandered, alas, more. Ukraine got from the ships of the first rank that which was not completed. The division of the Black Sea Fleet of the USSR in terms of the ship composition occurred, in general, in favor of Russia, although it struck not weakly. But yourself ... Where are "Kiev", "Minsk" and "Novorossiysk"? The first two are now floating attractions, the third is on pins and needles. "Gorshkov" to the Indians ... All "Pike" before the RTMK - were written off until the early 2000s. 949 "Granite" was cut with the money of Western friends (as well as a significant number of "Shchuk" 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.
  19. Drosselmeyer
    +1
    22 March 2013 12: 22
    Actually, now the French attribute their fleet to the second in the world, after the Americans.
    1. +3
      22 March 2013 12: 51
      I don’t know how they counted and for what purpose. 1 aircraft carrier, 2 or 3 UDC, about 20 frigates (however, up to a dozen of them can be classified as destroyers - a displacement of more than 6000 tons). 6 "Rube" and 4 "Triumfans". A good European balanced fleet, which is what France needs. But to call it the second in the world is incorrect.
      949And to help them ... winked
    2. +1
      22 March 2013 12: 55
      lol what? even though the frogs will become they and the first write. Although their horizons are interesting.
      1. 0
        22 March 2013 13: 48
        Quote: leon-iv
        Although their horizons are interesting.
        On them, it seems, "Asters" - in a number of 50 pieces. - So the air defense frigate. The ship is specialized.
        1. 0
          22 March 2013 15: 58
          "Asters" - 50 pcs. - So the air defense frigate. The ship is specialized.
          This is exactly what a purely order ship will be good for covering the Mistral
  20. +4
    22 March 2013 12: 52
    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. +1
      22 March 2013 14: 03
      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 Berk destroyers do not pose a direct threat to mainland Russia in the age of nuclear weapons. A dozen SSBNs are enough to neutralize the entire US Navy - 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. +1
        24 March 2013 14: 02
        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. And Khrushchev was already in our history, the quirks of this "reformer" are still being felt. You also have the last argument - nuclear weapons (especially for you - nuclear weapons). By the way, it is impolite to not answer on forums.
  21. 0
    22 March 2013 13: 23
    I suggest listening to an interview with Caperang Ostapenko. Here is a direct link to Vesti FM - http://www.radiovesti.ru/articles/2012-07-22/fm/58299
    Click listen - listen.
  22. +1
    22 March 2013 14: 05
    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. 0
      22 March 2013 14: 14
      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. 0
        22 March 2013 15: 59
        but cutting titanium giants is more expensive.
        And the price of modernization thereof?
        1. 0
          22 March 2013 18: 18
          Quote: leon-iv
          And the price of modernization thereof?

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

        Well, first of all pr.941 "Shark" steel.
        Secondly, unlike Ohia, in Shark, cruise missiles can be placed in two floors, and you get a carrier with 240 cruise missiles, you will 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. 0
          22 March 2013 21: 03
          Quote: saturn.mmm
          Well, first of all pr.941 "Shark" steel.

          The strong case - from the titan. Lightweight - steel.
          Quote: saturn.mmm
          in "Shark" you can place cruise missiles on two floors and you get a carrier with 240 cruise missiles - you must 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. 0
            22 March 2013 22: 47
            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 "your" nation is tired of the know-it-all.
            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 were designed in 60 years, and more and more freshly cut first of all "patriots" bdrm your ship is all that could be squeezed out of azuha.

            Quote: andreitk20
            atalef you know I'm not a nationalist, but "your" nation is tired of the know-it-all.
            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
        0
        26 March 2013 11: 45
        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?
  23. 0
    22 March 2013 14: 39
    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 the plans of the US military shipbuilding in 2013-2017 f.y. in the next 5 years the following ships will be built and delivered to the fleet: one heavy nuclear aircraft carrier (AVT) Gerald Ford (CVN-78), 9 nuclear submarines with missile and torpedo armament (PLAT) of the Virginia type (SSN-774 ), 9 Arleigh Burke-class destroyers (DDG-51), 16 coastal zone warships of the LCS (Littoral Combat Ship) type, one universal amphibious assault ship (UDC) America LHA-6, 2 tugs, one landing platform MLP (Mobile Landing Platform), one high-speed transport catamaran JHSV (Joint High Speed ​​Vessel), one tanker 41 ships will be delivered to the fleet, including 2013 units in FY10, 2014 units in FY7, 2015 units in FY8, 2016 units in FY9 and 2017 units in FY7.

    You don’t even know. how does this relate .. request
    1. -4
      22 March 2013 16: 29
      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 aircraft carrier "Abraham Lincoln" is postponed indefinitely. At the moment, the aircraft carrier with a torn up 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 lack of funds, the dismantlement of the Enterprise is delayed and the RCOH (overhaul with reactor recharge) of the aircraft carrier J. Washington is postponed. By the way, even without any delay, RCOH takes at least 3 years.
      1. +1
        22 March 2013 17: 46
        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. 0
          22 March 2013 22: 10
          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.
  24. +2
    22 March 2013 16: 32
    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 saying all this? Besides, it is necessary to develop specifically non-nuclear types of weapons, both naval and land and the Air Force. That would be able to protect their homeland and stay alive, if not all, but wives, children, mothers. I think you understand me. In the end, Georgia was forced to peace not with a nuclear bomb, but with tanks, machine guns, helicopters. And the atomic bomb, as they say, "The last argument of kings." And you can't forget about him either. Something like that.
    1. +2
      22 March 2013 19: 15
      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. 0
        22 March 2013 20: 16
        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. +1
      22 March 2013 19: 38
      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
  25. Gari
    +1
    22 March 2013 16: 56
    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.
  26. Gari
    0
    22 March 2013 16: 59
    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. +1
      22 March 2013 19: 19
      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.
  27. Yapatriot
    0
    22 March 2013 17: 08
    if war breaks out in an hour and a half, there will be no war or peace
  28. 0
    22 March 2013 17: 55
    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. 0
      22 March 2013 19: 35
      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.
  29. 0
    22 March 2013 18: 11
    Already 3 Boreas on the water by the way and Vikramadatya completed, the data in the article is clearly outdated.
    1. 0
      22 March 2013 19: 31
      On the water? Not even funny.
  30. 0
    22 March 2013 19: 29
    It’s interesting to see the naval battle in August the eighth. I recommend it. There are videos on YouTube.
    1. 0
      22 March 2013 20: 10
      Why watch there? Already everyone looked for a long time. If there are new frames - lay out.
      1. 0
        22 March 2013 22: 33
        I agree. Once I saw a video shot in the engine room of "Caesar .." I think. At the time of the attack. I even liked it better than the cartoon Vesti. Poshukayte. Nothing special, like, watch is like a watch, but still cool. Now sometimes.
  31. Avenger711
    -1
    22 March 2013 20: 32
    Kaptsov such Kaptsov ...
  32. +2
    22 March 2013 22: 13
    Everyone somehow focused on the number of keels, but did not pay at all to MEANS OF DAMAGE AND COUNTERACTION. Comparing the Navy of the USSR and the Navy of Russia, as if the current one turned out to be "toothy". I mean, the FLEET as a system for collecting and processing information, target designation, and COUNTERACTION against those of the enemy. Very "rushing" to share information about the possibilities of COUNTERFEIT, but - "nafig, nafig". So do not "shit" the Slavs. If earlier they prayed for "dryness of gunpowder", now - "God save from breakdown in the circuit." As-bae hint.
  33. 0
    22 March 2013 23: 00
    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.
  34. +4
    22 March 2013 23: 53
    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.
  35. ABV
    +1
    23 March 2013 02: 19
    Here someone (on the site in earlier comments to articles) complained that on our ships "rust" is visible here and there ...
    Look at the photo of the American "handsome" ---
    USS Essex (LHD-2) - Wasp-class universal amphibious assault ship !!!
  36. postman
    +2
    23 March 2013 07: 29
    The author has a strange approach to the goals and objectives of the Navy, as well as to nuclear weapons (and their "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?
  37. Mikola
    -3
    23 March 2013 13: 30
    Hmm, Oleg Kaptsov clearly suffers from a soviet disease. He constantly writes about the ineffectiveness of the American fleet. But this "ineffective" fleet solved the tasks assigned to it - it ousted Russian interests from Yugoslavia, Iraq, Lebanon and is now systematically driving them out of Syria. And how can submarines help the interests of Russia ?! 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. -1
      23 March 2013 23: 45
      Quote: Mikola
      for which Kaptsov has a mental allergy

      laughing
    2. postman
      0
      26 March 2013 10: 23
      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 fleet of the 3rd Reich. And the tubs of the "Tirpitz" type, even from the stocks, would be afraid to get off if the Americans, and not the British, took on 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?
  38. +2
    24 March 2013 01: 45
    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, maybe land without amers will not twitch. And what, you again want to stop him at the walls of Moscow? It may be better to sink the "carriers of democracy" when leaving Norfolk or, in extreme cases, at the crossing by sea. AND?
    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.
  39. 9064214790
    +1
    April 2 2013 15: 11
    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.
  40. 0
    4 June 2013 17: 44
    I don't remember who said, but the meaning is this: "The presence of TNW 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.

"Right Sector" (banned in Russia), "Ukrainian Insurgent Army" (UPA) (banned in Russia), ISIS (banned in Russia), "Jabhat Fatah al-Sham" formerly "Jabhat al-Nusra" (banned in Russia) , Taliban (banned in Russia), Al-Qaeda (banned in Russia), Anti-Corruption Foundation (banned in Russia), Navalny Headquarters (banned in Russia), Facebook (banned in Russia), Instagram (banned in Russia), Meta (banned in Russia), Misanthropic Division (banned in Russia), Azov (banned in Russia), Muslim Brotherhood (banned in Russia), Aum Shinrikyo (banned in Russia), AUE (banned in Russia), UNA-UNSO (banned in Russia), Mejlis of the Crimean Tatar People (banned in Russia), Legion “Freedom of Russia” (armed formation, recognized as terrorist in the Russian Federation and banned)

“Non-profit organizations, unregistered public associations or individuals performing the functions of a foreign agent,” as well as media outlets performing the functions of a foreign agent: “Medusa”; "Voice of America"; "Realities"; "Present time"; "Radio Freedom"; Ponomarev; Savitskaya; Markelov; Kamalyagin; Apakhonchich; Makarevich; Dud; Gordon; Zhdanov; Medvedev; Fedorov; "Owl"; "Alliance of Doctors"; "RKK" "Levada Center"; "Memorial"; "Voice"; "Person and law"; "Rain"; "Mediazone"; "Deutsche Welle"; QMS "Caucasian Knot"; "Insider"; "New Newspaper"