Türkiye has become the second largest naval ship builder in NATO.

Turkish Naval Commander Ercüment Tatlıoğlu made a significant announcement during the major Mavi Vatan 2026 (Blue Homeland 2026) exercises. He stated that 41 warships are currently under construction at Turkish shipyards simultaneously. This is an all-time record for the entire modern era. history country.

Of these, 37 ships are intended for the Turkish Navy, and four for the Coast Guard Command. The admiral emphasized that construction of nine more ships and support vessels will begin in the near future, bringing the number of military platforms under construction simultaneously to fifty.

The statement came amid large-scale exercises involving 120 ships, 50 aircraft and around 15 military personnel in the Black, Aegean and Mediterranean Seas.

Thus, Türkiye is actively implementing an ambitious modernization program. fleet under the MILGEM brand and other national projects. Ships under construction include Istif-class frigates, Hisar-class corvettes and patrol ships, and destroyers. Defense The TF-2000 (Tepe-class), the national submarine MİLDEN, and the large aircraft carrier MUGEM, with a displacement of approximately 60 tons – significantly larger than the current flagship of the TCG Anadolu.

Particular attention is paid to a high share of localization: many ships are equipped with Turkish radars, combat management systems, MiDLAS vertical launchers, anti-ship missiles rockets Atmaca and Hisar air defense systems. Turkish shipyards (including state-owned ones in Istanbul and Gölcük, and private ones such as Anadolu, Sedef, Sefine, and others) demonstrate impressive production capacity.

Turkish Press:

Distributed construction allows for parallel work on dozens of hulls, making Turkey one of the world's fastest-growing NATO countries, second only to the United States.

Experts note that this scale not only strengthens Turkey's defense capabilities in the Eastern Mediterranean, Aegean, and Black Seas, but also opens up new export opportunities. Turkey is already supplying MILGEM-class ships to Pakistan and recently signed contracts for frigates for Indonesia. The growth of Turkey's naval potential is also attracting interest from other countries. Specifically, the United States is negotiating with Ankara on possible shipbuilding cooperation amid Washington's desire to expand its navy in competition with China.

Comments

[foxes]

They're also building at a good pace. On paper, they're building a lot of ships for the Russian Navy, too, but at a snail's pace.

[marchcat]

It's strange that they're building so many ships, but can't afford to build a nuclear power plant??? Why the hell do we need that?

[Cool90]

The project is being implemented on a BOO (build-own-operate) basis. This means that Rosatom fully finances the plant's construction and then holds a majority stake in its operation, followed by decommissioning and spent nuclear fuel disposal.

Rosatom will own the plant and receive profits during construction, while Türkiye will only receive electricity.

[foxes]

The Turks have a 146% chance of seizing this nuclear power plant, and Rosatom will receive no "profit." You can screenshot my message.

[Cool90]

Well, of course, anyone can manage a nuclear power plant.

and if they don't squeeze you out, will you sit on the bottle?

[Atheist]

Rosatom will own the plant and receive profits during construction, while Türkiye will only receive electricity.

To make a profit, the construction costs, which are being financed with Russian state funds—that is, ours—must first be recouped. Furthermore, electricity rates will be set by the Turkish Ministry of Energy, not Rosatom. Therefore, no one knows when this project will pay off.

[Cool90]

That's how the economy works: before something pays for itself and makes a profit, it first has to be built.

You and I don't know, but those who build it know

[multi-category]

They're just building it with budget money, but the profits clearly won't go to the budget.
Somehow it doesn't turn out very fair.
In general, many murky and uncomfortable questions are emerging around Akkuyu.
Rosatom is slowly turning into a private sinecure that sucks enormous sums of money out of the state.

[Cool90]

Rosatom - State Atomic Energy Corporation (State Corporation Rosatom) - Russian state holding company uniting enterprises in the nuclear industry

the profit will go to the budget as taxes

According to information published in February 2024, Rosatom enterprises returned 411,1 billion rubles in taxes to the Russian budget in 2023.

[multi-category]

Do you have any idea how much a guaranteed pre-order costs in gigantic quantities? How are the allocated investments being used?
You shouldn't draw conclusions based on general figures from ministries.
I see the situation from the inside and there is a lot there that does not fit into the term “decency”.

[Cool90]

Well, you're drawing conclusions that everything is bad based on general figures from ministries.
I see the situation better than you and everything is fine there.

[multi-category]

Quote: Kull90

Well, you're drawing conclusions that everything is bad based on general figures from ministries.

Where? I'm saying that you draw conclusions, good or bad, from inadequate starting points.

[Cool90]

*they're only building it with budget money, and the profits clearly won't go to the budget.* - these are your words where you draw conclusions

[Atheist]

That's how the economy works: before something pays for itself and makes a profit, it first has to be built.

Not quite so, or rather, not at all. At first glance, the construction of the Akkuyu Nuclear Power Plant looks like an investment project. But investments, especially public funds, are only good when there's a clear and understandable payback period. Otherwise, it's just money down the drain.
I'd like to point out once again that electricity tariffs (which directly impact the payback period of a nuclear power plant) are determined by the Turkish government. Their logic may be quite simple: since an additional, powerful power source—a nuclear power plant—has emerged, the cost of electricity should be lower than the current one (and that's right, otherwise why would they have undertaken construction in the first place?).
Thus, Rosatom will simply be presented with the fact that electricity tariffs were reduced under pressure from voters. In Turkey, the population is actively involved in politics and votes in large numbers and regularly.
Have I clearly explained what is murky about this project?

[Cool90]

Those who build have a clear and understandable perspective in terms of payback periods, but we don't know, and for some reason you think that if you don't know, then others don't know either. In my opinion, that's an inflated ego.

You think that power plants are being built around the world to lower prices? I'm going to disappoint you: power plants are being built because energy consumption is growing.
Thus, Rosatom will sell electricity like other power plants in Turkey and for the same price.

[Atheist]

Thus, Rosatom will sell electricity like other power plants in Turkey and for the same price.

For this to happen, a guarantee is needed. This guarantee could be a construction loan, as is done in most cases (the USSR, by the way, also built this way – there were no fools there).
Here, construction is being carried out at Russia's expense, at its own risk, and Türkiye will not return anything. And in the event of unforeseen circumstances (escalation of tensions, etc.), Russia will be left holding the bag.
Would you like examples, please?
In the 2010s, the Finnish company Fortum built several large thermal power plants in Russia using a similar scheme. With the start of the SVO, Fortum, for obvious reasons, withdrew from the Russian energy market—its investments were wasted.

[Cool90]

Anything can happen in life. You built a house, but suddenly a meteorite falls and there is no house. So what if you don't build it?

Turkey will return everything, and in the event of unforeseen circumstances (aggravation of relations, etc.), Turkey will languish without energy. Someone has to manage the nuclear power plant, and specialists are not lying around in the trash, and tomato sellers are not going to become specialists either.

So the Finns left on their own, why feel sorry for them, no one kicked them out

[Atheist]

So the Finns left on their own, why feel sorry for them, no one kicked them out

Yes, it was a serious case. Andrey from Chelyabinsk was right when he told you about Monday, icy conditions, and a broken arm.

[Cool90]

For Finnish club Fortum, leaving Russia has resulted in losses. And not just for them.

Finnish state-owned energy company Fortum, which lost billions in investments due to its withdrawal from Russia, accused the Danish company Vestas (its former partner in the construction of wind turbines in Russia) of exploiting anti-Russian sentiment to avoid paying its bills.

As is well known, in the first half of last year, many, but not all, Western companies present in the Russian market fled the country. The energy company Fortum (50,55% of which is owned by the Finnish state) was no exception. In May 2022, it announced its intention to leave the Russian market, cease financing its subsidiaries in Russia, and abandon new investments. A bit of background is necessary here. The Finnish company entered the Russian market in 2008, when Fortum's Russian subsidiary, PAO Fortum, was launched.

And where am I wrong? If the Finns are idiots, that's their problem, or you're a Finn and it's offensive.

Well, why get so personal? Do you think you're cooler or something?

[foxes]

Why should they pay for it if Russian officials are willing to foot the bill for the nuclear power plant themselves? So Sultan decided to use the saved money to develop his own navy.

[multi-category]

Turkey has high inflation and an extremely difficult economic situation in general.
I don't understand at all how the Turks manage to actively invest in defense against this backdrop.
But if we remember that Ukraine, Poland, and Finland are very actively arming themselves, then an extremely unpleasant plan emerges, for which we are not at all prepared

[knn54]

Her example (self-reliance) is a lesson to others.

[Arkady007]

Today I am rather against the construction of large military ships.
They take a lot of money, resources, and time, but can be disabled by a single drone or missile, which is hundreds of times cheaper.
Why are they needed if more than half of their tasks can already be performed by drones?

[alexputnik17]

The number of military platforms under construction simultaneously will reach fifty.

We would be so ...

[Cool90]

According to Vladimir Putin, more than 70 different military ships are being built at Russian shipyards.

Over the past five years, 49 ships have been built for the Russian Navy, Russian President Vladimir Putin announced on April 11 during a meeting on Navy development in St. Petersburg.

It turns out that we have to build more, and we don’t need to do the same as them
Moreover, among the ships under construction there is a Project 955 submarine with 16 micro-brigades and 160 nuclear warheads of 150 kt each.

[novel66]

Are there enough ships to support the deployment of these submarines?

[Cool90]

there are enough, and 70 more ships are being built

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Quote: Kull90

enough

Did Putin tell you this too?

[Cool90]

My opinion is that it is enough

The American navy is overrated, as the Middle East conflict has shown. They said an aircraft carrier needed 1000 missiles and 500 planes, but it turned out a Shahed was enough, and the fat-assed sailor didn't disappoint, shitting a big "Obama."

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Quote: Kull90

My opinion is that it is enough

Well, if in your opinion two relatively modern minesweepers and as many as five prehistoric small anti-submarine ships for the entire Northern Fleet (6 bases) is enough...
The value of your opinion cannot be underestimated.

Quote: Kull90

The American fleet is overestimated, as the conflict in the Middle East has shown.

I'm afraid you don't know anything about this conflict or the fleet involved in it.

[Cool90]

and also 2 SSBNs with 160 nuclear warheads on each and in addition to the 8 built, but for some reason you always forget in your sketches

In this conflict, American tankers are burning in the strait, the American fleet has fled its bases and refuses to defend them, Trump has drawn brown lines all over everything and is seeking a truce.

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Quote: Kull90

as well as 2 SSBNs with 160 nuclear warheads on each and in addition to the 8 built,

Well, it's just your imagination running wild :))) In the Russian Federation, only 8 SSBNs have been built since 1991.

Quote: Kull90

but for some reason you always forget in your sketches

But lying like that is just stupid. I just wrote,

Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk

we take the period 2021-25.
4 SSBNs

Quote: Kull90

In this conflict, American tankers are burning in the strait and the American fleet has fled its bases.

Of course. But none of this will save our SSBNs, no matter how much you fantasize about it.

[Cool90]

8 have been built, 2 are under construction, the power of these SSBNs is like 100 Turkish Navy

You listed some boats in the comments, and as usual, you forgot about the two SSBNs under construction with 160 nuclear warheads on each. Stop evading and be a man.

Why should our nuclear-powered submarines rescue burning American tankers and the American fleet that has fled its bases?

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Quote: Kull90

You listed some boats in the comments, and as usual, you forgot about the two RPKSNs that were under construction.

Because without these "boats" the SSBNs are meaningless and will be destroyed at the beginning of the conflict without having fulfilled their mission.
So clearer?

[Cool90]

This is how these boats and SSBNs are built, but for some reason you are forgetting about the SSBNs

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Quote: Kull90

This is how these boats and SSBNs are built, but for some reason you are forgetting about the SSBNs

How sweet:)))) I wrote to you in plain Russian

Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk

Well, I will list that there are currently 2 helicopter carriers and 3 landing ships under construction, 2 SSBNs, 4 SSGNs, 1 Poseidon towboat, 2 diesel-electric submarines, 5 frigates, 9 corvettes, 8 missile cruisers, 4 patrol ships, 6 minesweepers, 2 patrol boats - what will this change?

But you forgot about it—and now you're blaming me for my forgetfulness. I'm not suggesting you become a man, but you do need to see your doctor.

[Cool90]

**Well, if in your opinion two relatively modern minesweepers and as many as five prehistoric small anti-submarine ships for the entire Northern Fleet (6 bases) is enough...** - this is your comment in which you *forgot* about two SSBNs with 160 nuclear warheads

stop swerving already

And where I show up is none of your business, no need to get personal, don't ruin the dialogue, well, move on

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Quote: Kull90

- this is your comment in which you *forgot* about 2 SSBNs with 160 nuclear warheads

You're delusional, my dear. Why should I include information about two SSBNs under construction in a comment about the CURRENT strength of the Northern Fleet's small anti-submarine ships and minesweepers? What do they have to do with the BMZ guard ships? None. Therefore, only someone... very gifted could accuse me of not mentioning the SSBNs under construction. Alternatively, I'd suggest...

Quote: Kull90

and where I show up is none of your business

Of course, it's not mine. But you should still see a doctor.

Quote: Kull90

no need to get personal

Oh, look, you remembered about decency:)))
“You shouldn’t shyly pull your skirt over your knees, Comrade Captain 1st Rank, when you came to a venereologist for help. Tell me how you managed, from such a good and necessary thing as receiving a patron’s delegation, to arrange a drunken orgy with trips on a command boat in the winter Gulf with prophylactic grenade launching?" (With)

[Cool90]

Well, if you think that's how we should communicate, then listen *leaky*, we're discussing construction in Turkey and Russia here, and we found out that Turkey has 50 ships, and Russia has 70.

If you're writing in formation, you've forgotten about the Project 885, 971, and 945 nuclear submarines, the Pr1551 large anti-ship missile ship, the Pr22350 frigates, and the 8 SSBNs with 160 nuclear warheads each, as well as the Tu-142 aircraft.
And then you should go too, but to a proctologist.

I wrote it impolitely, so that you would understand better, decency is bad

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Quote: Kull90

If you're writing in formation, you've forgotten about the Project 885, 971, and 945 submarines, the PR1551 large anti-submarine ship, and the PR22350 frigates.

Only in your overactive imagination. Because everything you listed isn't BMZ ships, and I was writing specifically about BMZ ships. You can read about the Northern Fleet in general here.
https://topwar.ru/271556-krasnoznamennyj-severnyj-flot-chto-den-grjaduschij-nam-gotovit.html
https://topwar.ru/271892-krasnoznamennyj-severnyj-flot-o-perspektivah-nadvodnyh-korablej.html
https://topwar.ru/272211-morskaja-aviacija-krasnoznamennogo-severnogo-flota-est-li-svet-v-konce-tonnelja.html
https://topwar.ru/272926-o-tarkr-admiral-nahimov-v-svete-vozmozhnostej-severnogo-flota-v-2035-2040-gg.html
However, it will be difficult for you - there are a lot of letters there.

[Cool90]

What's stopping them from guarding the submarine and working at BMZ?

[Cool90]

And why do you think your opinion is correct?

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

I've been studying these questions for almost 40 years now :)))) But you're welcome to ask the sailors directly. Just... you won't be happy with the answer. I did ask.

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Quote: Kull90

What's stopping them from guarding the submarine and working at BMZ?

How do you envision the Project 885 nuclear-powered submarines combating mine threats? Should they go ahead of the SSBNs and be the first to hit a mine?
In general, each ship has its own mission. For example, the SSGN-885 is essential in Norvegsky to deter enemy aircraft carriers and SSBNs, which could launch a dagger strike from there with short-range SLBMs.
Patrol aircraft are very good at finding enemy submarines. But we don't have any—except for the ancient Tu-142s, which are now completely useless, and the Il-1s and Novellas, which can do very little. And so on, but more details are in the articles.

[Cool90]

And do you think the mines will arrive via teleport?

Why hold them back there if you can simply cover the SSBNs that will fire at US bases and cities, destroying warehouses, repairmen, and the population?

How can aviation detect a boat under the ice?
And what do you think the fighters and air defense will do?

You wrote the articles, and why do you think you're right? No matter who you talk to, if they're active sailors, they won't tell you anything. It's a secret, or you don't know what a secret is. And judging by you, your friends are the same: everything is bad.

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Quote: Kull90

And do you think the mines will arrive via teleport?

No, they are installed by nuclear and diesel submarines that sail undetected near our bases.

Quote: Kull90

Why hold them there if you can just cover the SSBNs?

It's impossible. There's nothing to cover them with.

Quote: Kull90

How can aviation detect a boat under the ice?

Do you really think there's ice everywhere in the Northern Fleet? :)))))) Look at the maps to see when and where the ice line is. Here's a hint: it's 20 miles from the naval base to the ice line, and it's all forested.

Quote: Kull90

And what do you think the fighters and air defense will do?

They can't stop enemy aircraft from flying and spotting our submarines in the pre-war period. And in the wartime period—well, they'll show they know how to die with dignity. What do you expect from two naval aviation regiments, which have an entire squadron of more or less modern heavy Su-30s?

Quote: Kull90

You wrote the articles

Absolutely.

Quote: Kull90

And why do you think you're right?

With a powerful argument in support of my theses. And what can you offer? "Aaaah, are you a drug addict or something?!" - that's all you can squeeze out.

[Cool90]

They'll bombard the air force with hats, submarines will come from somewhere and lay mines, that's what you call argumentation,

The US reported that a Russian nuclear-powered cruiser had been cruising near the US coast for several weeks, while the US military was unaware of it. Only after the Russian submarine left did the Pentagon learn of its maneuvers.
And how many mines did she plant there and all the American submarines would explode?

Our fighters will shoot down all American planes that survive the Yars' arrival without losses = that's also an argument

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Quote: Kull90

the aviation will be pelted with hats

Yes, those are some hefty targets for US Navy and NATO aircraft on the northern flank. Against our roughly 60, there will be a full 250.

Quote: Kull90

Apple will sail from somewhere

From the US – from their military bases. However, recently a Japanese diesel-electric submarine demonstratively surfaced near Vilyuchinsk. Until it surfaced, it hadn't been seen... And the Norwegians have good diesel-electric submarines, too.

Quote: Kull90

This is what you call argumentation,

This is what I call your profound illiteracy. You know nothing about the navy, you've never read anything. About the navy's missions, about the challenges of fighting enemy submarines since the Soviet era. How the USSR relied on "bastions," what forces they stationed there... You're completely ignorant, so what I'm telling you is completely incomprehensible.

[Cool90]

And after the nuclear strikes by the Yars, how many will be left, and where are they hiding their 250 planes?

According to information, by 2030, the air forces of the Nordic countries (Iceland, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Finland) will have 200 fighters. There may or may not be other fighters somewhere else.

By 30, we will have 150 fighters, and not just any F-35, but the Su-57 and Su-35, the best fighters in the world.

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Quote: Kull90

and after the nuclear strikes by the Yars, how much will remain,

Who said there would be nuclear strikes? It would start suddenly, the SSBNs would be burned at their piers by nuclear weapons at point-blank range, and the flight time to Moscow from adjacent seas would be 12 minutes.
That is, the naval component of the strategic nuclear forces can be destroyed before the order to use nuclear weapons comes from the Dead Hand.
They're prevented from such a scenario by the SSBNs and the retaliatory strike. If they're attacked, they might even decide to do so. That's why it's important to ensure the SSBNs' covert deployment to combat duty. And without sufficient forces at the BMZ, it's a lottery.

Quote: Kull90

According to information, by 2030 it will be part of the air forces of the Nordic countries.

Add American ones and the picture will immediately get worse.

[Cool90]

American ships and decrepit Ohio ships from the 70s will be burned in their bases before they even leave, and Washington is just 2 minutes away by plane, no chance.

That is, the naval component of the strategic nuclear forces can be destroyed instantly.

Add another 50 Su-57s and NATO has no chance.

What kind of nonsense are you writing? They'll throw hats at us. Why doesn't the phrase "no need for hat-throwing" work here?

If they could, they would have done it long ago, but they can't, and that's why I'm right.

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Quote: Kull90

American ships and decrepit Ohio ships from the 70s will be burned in their bases before they even get off the ground.

Ohio half is always on alert. And we don't know where

Quote: Kull90

and it's a 2-minute flight to Washington, no chance

Yes, we can do that. If we suddenly attack first. The only question is that we won't attack first.

Quote: Kull90

Add another 50 Su-57s and NATO has no chance.

Quote: Kull90

what kind of nonsense are you writing?

I?:))))

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Quote: novel xnumx

Are there enough ships to support the deployment of these submarines?

Of course not. But we do build anti-sabotage boats. They've been renamed now, apparently as part of the ban on promoting non-standard sexual relations...

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Quote: Kull90

According to Vladimir Putin, more than 70 different military ships are being built at Russian shipyards.

So big, but you believe in fairy tales...

Quote: Kull90

In Russia, 49 ships have been built for the Russian Navy over the past five years.

Of course. That's if you count all the tugboats and other boats and launches. Even that wouldn't be enough, and besides, there's this little clearing here—it wasn't built, just handed over to the navy. They took seven or eight years to build...

[Cool90]

If you have evidence that something is not true, then provide it.
There is definitely no credibility to your words

The Turks also count all sorts of tugboats and other boats with motorboats

What difference does it make how many were built if 49 ships were built in five years, including the Project 955 submarine with 16 microbrigades and 160 nuclear warheads of 150 kt each?

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Quote: Kull90

If you have evidence that something is not true, then provide it.

What evidence do you have? Well, I'll list that currently under construction are 2 helicopter carriers, 3 landing ships, 2 SSBNs, 4 SSGNs, 1 Poseidon towboat, 2 diesel-electric submarines, 5 frigates, 9 corvettes, 8 missile cruisers, 4 patrol ships, 6 minesweepers, and 2 patrol boats—what difference does that make? You'll say again.

Quote: Kull90

There is definitely no credibility to your words

So I suggest you see for yourself.

Quote: Kull90

What difference does it make how many were built if 49 ships were built in five years?

And you count it yourself:))))))

[Cool90]

and you think this is not enough (1 SSBN is as powerful as 10 Turkish naval ships, and only 2 are being built) and 8 are in service

You listed 48 ships, if you add the auxiliary ships under construction, you get 70

What's the point? 49 ships have been built in the last 5 years. The frigate engine problem has been solved (they'll be built faster now—the frigates were waiting for engines, that's why they were delayed). Submarines are churning out warships, and so are Depps.

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Quote: Kull90

and you think this is not enough

I think it's 48 and not 70.

Quote: Kull90

You listed 48 ships, if we also add the auxiliary ships under construction

You wrote

Quote: Kull90

According to Vladimir Putin, more than 70 different military ships are being built at Russian shipyards.

A warship is a vessel that is part of the navy and capable of performing combat or special missions. Many auxiliary vessels are not military, even if they are built for the navy and are not actually part of the navy.

Quote: Kull90

What should we count? 49 ships have been built in the last 5 years.

we take the period 2021-25.
4 SSBNs, 4 SSGNs, 1 Poseidon torpedo boat, 6 diesel-electric submarines, 1 frigate, 2 corvettes, 3 patrol boats, 5 missile boats, 5 minesweepers, 4 small-size missile ships. That's all, I think.
And this is despite the fact that, for example, the SSGNs that entered service were laid down between 2009 and 2015.

[Cool90]

In the same way, auxiliary vessels are built in Turkish shipyards, which are included in the total number of ships being built

4 SSBNs with 160 nuclear warheads each = power

The frigates were waiting for engines, so construction was delayed. Now the engines are in serial production, and construction timelines are accelerating.

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Quote: Kull90

In the same way, auxiliary vessels are built in Turkish shipyards, which are included in the total number of ships being built

I don't think so - they're talking about warships.

Quote: Kull90

4 SSBNs with 160 nuclear warheads each = power

Tanks in WWII were also a force to be reckoned with. When they had motorized infantry to support them, self-propelled guns to suppress enemy anti-tank positions, and aircraft to prevent dive bombers from destroying them... But when none of that was available, and only tanks were available, we had 1941, when tanks lost tens of thousands of lives, yet didn't cause much damage to the Germans.
It's the same with SSBNs

[Cool90]

You don't need to think about it, the article directly mentions auxiliary vessels.

Tanks and RPKSNs are absolutely incomparable systems. Hiroshima was blown away by a single 20 kt bomb, but how many tanks were needed for that?
so it's not the same with SSBNs

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Quote: Kull90

you don't need to think,

Alexander, you don't need to think about this. You're very good at it, by the way. But I'm used to thinking.

Quote: Kull90

Tanks and rocket launchers are absolutely incomparable systems.

Study the meaning of the word "analogy" at your leisure.

[Cool90]

Well, if you're good at thinking, then you probably know how to read, and the article directly refers to auxiliary vessels.

Well, that's a stupid analogy, the power of these weapons is incomparable, a strike of ten nuclear warheads on Ukrainian cities could end the Soviet-Ukrainian War in three days.

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Quote: Kull90

and the article directly refers to auxiliary vessels

Yeah. But unlike you, I know there's a difference between auxiliary naval vessels, which are military, and tugs and the like, which are built for the Navy but aren't military.

Quote: Kull90

Well, that's a stupid analogy.

Just for you—for those who fail to understand that it's not the wunderwaffe (in our case, the SSBNs) that wins, but the system. And that the SSBNs will be blown up by mines as they put to sea, with NATO nuclear submarines on their tails, waiting near our naval bases, and that these same nuclear submarines will fire short salvos at the naval bases themselves, so that they won't even have time to fire back from the piers. That the SSBNs will be exposed at sea by patrol aircraft, and so on and so forth. And that we simply don't have the forces to sweep these mines, check the fairways, detect and punish the waiting enemy submarines, and so on and so forth.

[Cool90]

What are you talking about?

50 ships, including auxiliary vessels, are being built in Turkey.
Russia is building 70 ships, including auxiliary vessels, and is also building two SSBNs with 160 nuclear warheads each.

Well, yes, they'll throw their hats at us, but what will the Pr 885, Pr 971 and Pr 945 submarines, Pr 22350 frigates, Pr 1155 large anti-ship missile ships and Tu-95 aircraft do?

How will patrol aircraft be able to operate over ice and where in your calculations is our aviation and air defense?
They're hanging around our bases and throwing hats at us, "What are you talking about? Are you a drug addict or something?"

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Quote: Kull90

What are you talking about?

Data.

Quote: Kull90

They're hanging around our bases and throwing hats at us, "What are you talking about? Are you a drug addict or something?"

Welcome to the real world.
Read... Well, take Rear Admiral Zhandarov, for example. The article "The Homeless Arctic" can be found here.
https://vpk.name/news/126247_besprizornaya_arktika.html?ysclid=mnszbr22i4288913108
Even you can do it - it's short

Meanwhile, NATO submarines stand free in the Arctic. From 11 February to 13 August 2014, the New Hampshire submarines unchecked all the strategic containment of the Northern Fleet in the Barents Sea.

ONE SUBMARINE. That's how it is.

[Cool90]

It's not clear who wrote it, and you have to believe it right away. It's not clear to whom both American and Russian generals are reporting to.

On November 30, 2009, he retired from active duty after his contract expired, but he is still aware of all the events.

The US reported that a Russian nuclear-powered cruiser had been cruising near the US coast for several weeks, while the US military was unaware of it. Only after the Russian submarine left did the Pentagon learn of its maneuvers.

Such things or we don’t believe here

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Quote: Kull90

It's not clear who wrote it, so you have to believe it right away.

This is incomprehensible to you. Well, what can I say? Educate yourself.

Quote: Kull90

On November 30, 2009, he retired from active duty after his contract expired, but he is still aware of all the events.

And look WHERE he went.

Quote: Kull90

The US reported that a Russian nuclear-powered cruiser had been cruising near the US coast for several weeks, and the US military knew nothing about it.

Easily. We can do that. But here's the problem: we can navigate their coasts undetected, while they can track our SSBNs off our coasts. And to counter this, we need a strong heavy submarine defense force, small anti-submarine ships, corvettes, minesweepers, modern patrol aircraft, and the Unified State Security and Defense Ministry. But none of this exists, and none is expected. That's what I wrote about.

Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk

Of course, no.

[Cool90]

The Americans don't have minesweepers or corvettes, and they have nothing, as the war in the Middle East showed. One Shahed was enough for an aircraft carrier. The American fleet wet its pants and fled its bases. You can't overestimate the enemy.

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Quote: Kull90

So the Americans don't have minesweepers or corvettes.

Because they don't need them. It's their submarines that cluster around our naval bases, not ours. We only escorted their SSBNs a few times, and the submariners were awarded Heroes of the Soviet Union for it. They... Up to 70% of our sorties in the Pacific Fleet were under their control.

[Cool90]

Is there evidence or should I take your word for it?

How many mines did our submarine lay there while sailing undetected along the US coast for a month, and how many Ohio submarines did it destroy while observing undetected?

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Quote: Kull90

Is there evidence or should I take your word for it?

You don't have to believe me, you don't have to believe Rear Admiral Zhandarov, etc. We have freedom of religion, believe what you want. But if you want to KNOW, figure it out for yourself.

Quote: Kull90

And how many nuclear submarines did Ohio destroy?

They patrol in other places:)))))

[Cool90]

Having looked into the matter, I realized that NATO has no chance.

but they come out of a couple of places, and there they were completely destroyed and mines were laid, the Pentagon still didn't understand anything and the planes didn't help

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Quote: Kull90

Having looked into the matter, I realized that NATO has no chance.

Yes, a pair of ushanka hats will solve the problem:)))))

[Cool90]

Well, as usual, one should only write about NATO with enthusiasm and shower Russia with hats, but on the contrary, there is no need for any kind of boasting.

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Quote: Kull90

Well, as usual, one should only write about NATO with admiration.

You just need to understand what you're writing about.
For example, you simply don't understand that the US isn't particularly concerned with ASW coverage of its coastline, but its SSGN naval bases are covered three times. So you think that if our SSGN sailed along the US coast undetected, their naval bases will too.
I know our submarines couldn't even begin to hang out near US naval bases on a regular basis—it's no wonder those who took the "Gaika" submarines to escort the Heroes were given them. But the Americans, unfortunately, hang out near our naval bases regularly and successfully.
It's also known that the US easily maintains 6-7 SSBNs on combat duty, meaning a single approach to their VBM would prevent us from controlling these ships at sea, even with luck. Our CR is much lower, so we'd be lucky to have 2-3 SSBNs on combat duty for both fleets.
Because of the above, you fail to grasp a simple fact: we can sometimes reach a US naval base where American SSBNs are based, but we can't even theoretically escort them all to destroy them first. The Americans, however, currently have such capabilities; they could pull this off with a good chance of success.
The most problematic thing isn't whether they'll succeed in pinning down our SSBNs. The most problematic thing is that the US might BELIEVE they will succeed. And start Armageddon in the hopes of avoiding a retaliatory strike. They might not avoid it, but it will be too late to regret it—a catastrophe of planetary proportions will already have occurred.
To avoid a nuclear war, American submarines need to be detected in the BMZ - then they won't be tempted to start one.
And people like you, who, out of false patriotism, declare that "everything is fine, beautiful marquise," when nothing is fine here at BMZ, simply don't understand what you're working for.

[Cool90]

They can (they'll throw hats at us), we can't (no need for boasting) = why do we need proof? The great armchair strategist said so, so that's how it is.

We can destroy them, they can't destroy us = no proof required

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Quote: Kull90

Why evidence?

My position is both evidence-based and logically justified. Think about yours at your leisure.

[Krasnoyarsk]

Quote: alexputnik17

The number of military platforms under construction simultaneously will reach fifty.

We would be so ...

So, we have 1. No money, 2. Lost competencies, so the construction of a lifeboat drags on for months, a second-class ship for years, and we don’t even take on the construction of a first-class ship.

[novel66]

In light of the SVO, now it’s not clear - what the hell is the 1st grade for and what kind of

[novel66]

In light of the NVO, it's now unclear what and how to build. Any enemy without a fleet, but with unmanned aircraft carriers, is a nightmare.

[moreman78]

Quote: marchcat

It's strange that they're building so many ships, but can't afford to build a nuclear power plant??? Why the hell do we need that?

Why bother? If there are suckers out there to screw, to push around, to bend!

[tralflot1832]

Türkiye isn't in the EU, but they started by breaking up ships for scrap. Then they took off with European investment and orders. And they didn't forget about Russian orders.

[alexputnik17]

Quote: Kull90

It turns out that we have to build more, and we don’t need to do the same as them

Maybe... Let's say, for us, between the bookmark and the launch, it's not like, for example, for Xi and Kim.

[Monetniy]

BEKI needs to build a fleet, it's essentially dead.

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Quote: Monetniy

BEKI needs to build a fleet, it's essentially dead.

You're clearly one of those people who, having broken their arm on an icy Monday, starts fighting Mondays instead of icy roads...

[foxes]

This is a new cult. "Tanks are unnecessary because they're drones." "A navy is unnecessary because they're BEKs." I'm too lazy to even respond to such people. A special "thank you" to the "war correspondents-X-farts" who surround their flock with such nonsense.

[solar]

Türkiye is building warships for Ukraine.

[Div Divich]

Essentially, Russia has replaced Ukraine with Turkey. Previously, Ukraine was a transit hub to Europe, now it is Türkiye.

The Americans tried but failed to pull off an Orange Revolution to install a puppet pro-American government, and Erdogan was saved...

If Ukraine loses Odessa, it will become very poor.