Military Review

Recurrence of underwater giantomania

118
Russia today can not afford the contents of dozens of nuclear submarine missile carriers


In the 18 number, “Military Industrial Complex” reported: the American information and analytical agency FAS on its website Strategic Security Blog announced that atomic strategic missile submarines of the Russian Navy made only five exits to combat patrols in 2012. The number of outputs shows, according to FAS, that only five of the nine Russian SSBNs were in combat readiness.

Is a Russian citizen ready to spend on defense just in case? The latter will be understood as the need to have in the naval strategic nuclear forces (NSNS) such a number of strategic missile submarines (SSBN), which due to poor planning, operation, personnel policy, and other factors often inherent in the Russian defense industry (defense industry). complex), more than the minimum required to complete the tasks (without taking into account the specific costs in the organization of service and operation).

The language of the inhabitant

Note that these costs are inherent in all types of aircraft and arms. Nevertheless, consider the marine component of the SNF.


Among the reasons that limited the appetites of the military and the “defense industry” during Soviet times, the main were the limits on production capabilities (built as much as they could), on the repair and technical base (they did not have time to repair, let alone modernize and re-equip), weak material and technical support ( all forces went to the construction of SSBN), insufficient staffing.

Looking at the current attitude of the country's leadership towards weapons programs and towards the whole military reform as a whole, it seems that nothing has changed. As before, as in the USSR, we do not consider resources, do not take into account the costs of the full cycle of the operation of weapons and military equipment up to disposal. In NATO countries, the defense budget is more open to discussion. But the political ambitions of our leaders are very reminiscent of the times of the Soviet Union.

Strategic nuclear weapon (NAO) is a deterrent, that is, it should ideally not be used by the parties in a war. Of the entire strategic triad, only heavy (strategic) bombers (TB) had a practical, unique dual purpose. They could be used in a conventional (non-nuclear) war, as demonstrated by the Americans in Vietnam and other military conflicts of the twentieth century.

Submarine strategic rocket carriers are single-purpose ships designed to solve one main task: delivering a nuclear strike on the territory of a potential enemy. And due to the fact that this is a weapon of deterrence, you need to have it in the quantity that solves this problem, and no more.

Outstanding general designer of rocket technology Vladimir Chelomey created a rather simple, reliable and massive ICBM UR-100. It began to be used in simplified single launcher mine launchers. At one of the meetings, the designer proposed to deploy them in the amount of up to 5000 pieces, so that not a single missile defense, first of all an American, could cope. Then the military and political leadership still leaned in favor of improving the quality of domestic missiles and their security. UR-100 managed to deploy within 1000 units only, but it was a kind of record: no one in the world placed such a number of ICBMs.

Statistics and calculations

How many countries can a “nuclear club” have of strategic nuclear weapons, in particular, naval ones? To assess the important indicators it is reasonable to choose the economic possibilities of each state and the territory of possible attacks. In the development of the latter indicator, it is appropriate to use the number of large administrative and industrial centers and important military facilities.

As practice has shown, the analysis of the required grouping of SNF to combat multiple military and important administrative and industrial facilities does not lead to minimization of the SNF, but stimulates the endless growth of nuclear groups. More preferable as a criterion may be irreparable damage to the economy of a potential adversary.

Let us calculate how many combat units (warheads) are needed to inflict irreparable damage. The main type of weapons of mass destruction - nuclear. Target characteristics - population size, gross domestic product, area and others.

With the explosion of a nuclear charge with a power of one Mt, the radius of complete destruction of ground objects is about four kilometers. One or more of these charges is enough to destroy a large city with a multimillion population and almost the entire infrastructure.

The selection of potential opponents (by the conditions of the problem) is also simple. Regardless of the faces, they are all known world powers possessing nuclear weapons.

What do we see? In terms of population, Russia is almost ten times inferior to China, twice - the United States, however, more than twice France and the United Kingdom separately. This ratio is interesting in that the Russian Federation is no longer the Soviet Union with an 250-million population. Therefore, we need to behave appropriately, including in the formulation of weapons and military equipment programs.

Great advantage for Russia in the area of ​​the national territory. There is where to disperse their resources and troops. The population density in the country is the lowest. But major cities, industrial, administrative, economic and military facilities will be striking, and they are concentrated in Europe, the Urals and the Far East.

In terms of gross domestic product (GDP), Russia today is inferior to all the nuclear powers under consideration: Great Britain and France — only 1,3 – 1,5 times, the United States and China — more than eight and almost four times, respectively.

Now let's look at the SNF. France and the United Kingdom, with the aforementioned GDP, respectively, have four SSBNs, but they have no TB and ICBMs at all. If the strategic potential of Paris or London is taken as a unit, then Russia should have practically the same one unit or up to four submarine missile carriers, China - 16, and the USA - 32. This is with the same number of SLBMs and nuclear charges on each ship. Since the American SSBNs carry 24 missiles, and the submarine missile carriers of Russia, France, Great Britain, and China carry 16 missiles, the US should have 21 SSBNs using this technique. Now Washington has the Ohio-type 14 SSBNs, four more are converted into cruise missile carriers. With less GDP, we have a desire and even plans to put into operation eight to ten Borey-type SSBNs.

I would like to understand: we will again follow the traditional path, or we will choose the long-open countries of the West (and now, obviously, in China), where they value quality and do not chase a simple amount of weapons.

Not by number, but by skill

Until now, we are trying to fight in numbers, especially people whose losses during the years of World War II were simply staggering - more than 20 million. Tanks we had the most in the world, their number reached 60 thousand. However, different types and modifications. Factories wanted to produce a lot of equipment, did not have time to upgrade old designs. Often it turned out that half of the samples were upgraded, the rest did not have time, and there the next generation of weapons and weapons, devices, ammunition, other systems are still in time, a new stage of modernization begins.

Recurrence of underwater giantomania

It seems that we are always in a hurry somewhere, we all want to catch up with and overtake someone. The same thing happened on navy, and in the Air Force, and in the air defense, and in the Strategic Missile Forces. And now after the dashing 90s, everything has become even more complicated.

As for the NSLR, we do not reach the world standards for the coefficient of operational voltage (KOH). This is the ratio of the time the ship was at sea, on combat service (duty) to the total time of operation. For our current partners (NATO countries), KON was equal to 0,5, and for us, even before 0,25, it was not enough in the best Soviet times. Consequently, as our military leaders argued, the outfit of the ships needed twice as much to perform the same task. And still stocks, as they say, just in case, and now the Soviet Union had 62 strategic missile-carriers against the American SSBNs 41.

The issue of combat readiness of the NSNF is very important. The intensity of combat services has remained low since the end of the 90s. Considering the fact that the combat patrol of one Russian missile carrier lasts from 40 to 60 days (less than the analogous output of the US Navy boat), the Russian fleet most likely did not provide continuous combat service for SSBNs in 2012.

In accordance with the latest political statements of the Russian Navy before 2020, the State Armaments Program will receive 15 strategic and multipurpose nuclear submarines of the Borey and Ash types. Quite recently, one of the largest naval protracted projects was completed, the implementation of which took the country almost 20 years. The nuclear submarine “Yuri Dolgoruky”, the leading X-ray missile system of the 955 “Borey” project, and the sea-based solid-fuel missile “Bulava” were put into service.

Of course, the potential adversary is also not standing still. With 2010 in the United States, targeted funding has begun for the Ohio Replacement program to create a series of new SSBNs - SSBN (X), which should be replaced by the Ohio type SSBNs by 2040. It is planned to build a series of 12 SSBNs for 14 old ones. The beginning of the working draft is 2015. The laying of the first hull of the series according to the plans of the US Navy's 30 summer shipbuilding program will take place in the 2019 year, the second in the 2022, and the third in the 2024. The remaining nine boats, one submarine per year, are planned to be laid in the period 2025 – 2033. The commissioning of the first SSBN of the SSBN (X) type and, accordingly, the withdrawal from the SSBN of the Ohio type is assigned to 2027.

Given the above calculations, it turns out that four of the eight missile carriers declared eight - to cover our KOH and just in case. This is half the new ships. Our “old” SSBNs of the 677BDRM project (in line six, on each 16 SLBM of the R-29RMU “Sineva”) and three SSBNs of the 667BDR with the 16 SLBM R-29Р are not taken into account. For some time they will still be able to ensure the security of the Fatherland.

Citizen Taxpayer

So, we pay for twice as much grouping as we can afford according to Western standards. The British and French, by contrast, are not ready to do that. They have four missile carriers and two times more per capita income than we do. It turns out that the load on the Russian able-bodied citizen is four times more than in the West. On the other hand, and who will ask him. Apparently not the right country.


It's not just the number of SSBNs. We are primarily interested in the missile system. How perfect is the Bulava ICBM, the main weapon of the Borey SSBN? They wrote a lot about it and opinions were completely opposite.

Our SLBM P-29RMU, its modification “Sineva” and the American “Trident-2” have long been exploited, they have become a kind of standard for naval strategic missiles. The first P-29RMU - as a liquid, the second "Trident-2" - as a solid fuel. And here comes the "Mace" with the performance characteristics close to the characteristics of the French SLBM M-51 and the Chinese JL-2. What is fundamentally changing?

The defenders of the “Bulava” have a place to roam around, they say, it has “such opportunities”, it overcomes the missile defense and does something else “secret”. It is very possible, just pay attention to one characteristic - the weight to be dropped, which includes both warheads (BB), and means of overcoming missile defense, radio engineering protection (RTZ), etc., etc., etc. With such a weight it is difficult to place everything that you want, and even fulfill the requirement for a given number of BBs of a certain power - the main destructive element of the system.

The principle “Everything that I want” was realized only on the largest ground-based ICBM P-36М2 “Voevoda”. She has 211 tons of starting weight. But it is separate история. Returning to the SLBM, you can recall the story that in our country for some reason is not very fond of, but increasingly trust in fairy tales and ridiculous predictions. This refers to the separate development of the Arsenal design bureau and the Miass mechanical engineering design bureau. The St. Petersburg enterprise offered MBR to the development of the first domestic solid-fuel rocket P-31 of the D-11 complex. KBM - the first studies and projects of the Republic of Kazakhstan for "Boreya" in 80-s and alternatives to the Bulava in the end of 90-s in solid-fuel and liquid versions.

If, however, to fantasize a little, distancing itself from the ambitions of our politicians and the military, under certain circumstances, Russia could simply skip a generation of submarine rocket carriers, extend the life of the existing SSBNs of the 667RDBM project as much as possible and immediately move on to a new generation of carriers for domestic NSNF, like the American SSBN (X) or promising English and French SSBNs.

The Sineva SLBM could well serve the Fatherland. There were proposals for the armament of modern missile carriers with these missiles (and their throwing weight is twice as high as the Bulava). We would not have spent extra money and would have stood on the same bar in terms of development time with the United States and other potential adversaries in the nuclear arms race. But events went on in a different scenario.

Touching missile defense as a counterbalance to the SNF, let us clarify: the successes of the Americans are not as obvious as they frighten us. Now Washington spends approximately 9 – 11 billions of dollars annually on maintaining and developing its missile defense system. What is the result? As the former chief of the Main Staff of the Strategic Missile Forces, Colonel-General Viktor Yesin, notes, the United States will need from five to seven GBI interceptor missiles to intercept a Russian Topol-M ballistic missile. On defense only from the Russian ICBMs of the US territory, they will need a significant group of antimissiles. And this is an almost impracticable program. However, as in the beginning of 70-ies, when the ABM Treaty was signed.
Author:
118 comments
Ad

The editorial board of Voenniy Obozreniye urgently needs a proofreader. Requirements: impeccable knowledge of the Russian language, diligence, discipline. Contact: [email protected]

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

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Hudo
    Hudo 29 May 2013 06: 39 New
    34
    I read to the place where the author writes about the losses of 20 million in the WWII without distinguishing between military losses and civilian casualties and somehow became disgusted from reading, for some reason I thought that the signature under the article looks like this - Gorbachev M.S.
    1. avant-garde
      avant-garde 29 May 2013 06: 41 New
      23
      Do not you think that in the end there are not enough hymns syshya, France and great gain ??? Who ever said what we should do as the west? Custom article !!!
      1. tronin.maxim
        tronin.maxim 29 May 2013 07: 00 New
        22
        Quote: avant-garde
        Custom article !!!

        Rather provocative.
        1. alex-defensor
          alex-defensor 29 May 2013 08: 24 New
          +9
          Article - sheer watering, moreover, with far-fetched alleged "evidence", didn’t read it, stopped reading after studying the very first table, the data of which already contradict the conclusions of the author.

          Judge for yourself:

          gross domestic product = annual size of goods (not necessarily produced by one’s own labor)

          The size of the annual benefits per person. in the USA - ~ $ 48000 (well, still, the whole world is robbed)

          The same indicator for Russia - ~ $ 10000

          That is, there are almost 5 times more benefits per US resident !!! But in the USA there are more than 2 times more inhabitants !!! Therefore - a ratio of 1 to 10 in favor of the United States.

          Compare defense costs !!!

          In the USA - ~ $ 732 billion

          Whereas in Russia - ~ $ 52 billion

          The ratio is ~ 1 to 14 in favor of the USA !!!

          So our defense spending is more modest than in the US in proportion to income by 50%
          1. Arberes
            Arberes 29 May 2013 09: 33 New
            17
            Quote: alex-defensor
            So our defense spending is more modest than in the US in proportion to income by 50%

            I will not argue over the figures given by a respected author in the tables (it is not known how reliable they are), but the author forgot about one indisputable fact that destroys all his calculations in the bud!
            There is a NATO bloc and this is our enemy! It is naive to believe that in the event of a nuclear upheaval, its members will observe with undisguised interest how RUSSIA and the USA will wipe each other off the face of the earth?
            We must add up the potential of the nuclear powers of NATO countries and oppose ours!
            So it turns out that we obviously do not have enough boats and missiles!
            1. rolik
              rolik 29 May 2013 12: 28 New
              +4
              Quote: Arberes
              but the author forgot about one indisputable fact,
              He "forgot" one more fact, the national debt of states per capita (including babies and old people) is compared with the national debt of Russia per capita. so, this debt completely negates the per capita income in the states indicated by the author. Moreover, the debt is growing, and the income is decreasing.
              The service life of the mattress boats smiled. Ohio initially relied on a 30 year life span. These boats were then certified for a 42-year service life consisting of two 20-year periods separated by a special two-year interval for reloading a nuclear reactor and carrying out regular routine maintenance ERO (engineered refueling overhaul)
              Plus, included in the table boats that will come (if they come) to replace Ohio. According to the Navy, the cost of purchasing a lead boat under the program is $ 11,7 billion, including $ 4,5 billion for detailed design and non-periodic DD / NRE engineering costs (detailed design and nonrecurring engineering), as well as $ 7,2 billion for building the most the ship. In the traditional practice of budgeting naval shipbuilding programs, the cost of DD / NRE costs for a new class of ships is related to the cost of purchasing the lead ship. According to Navy estimates, in February 2010 fiscal year, the purchase price of each SSBN (X) SSBN for the replacement of Ohio boats ranged from six to seven billion. Then, in December 2010 fiscal year, at a meeting to analyze the purchase of new SSBNs, the purchase price of 2-12 serial boats at the level of $ 4,9 billion was indicated. The US Navy is working to achieve the set cost, and in 2011, due to efforts to reduce program costs, the average estimated cost of purchasing 2-12 serial boats was reduced to $ 5,6 billion. An analysis is currently underway of potential opportunities to reduce the estimated purchase price of each serial boat to $ 4,9 billion, which does not include the cost of upgrading the D-5 SLBM in order to extend its service life until 2042. In fiscal year 2011, according to the Navy, the average purchase price of one new serial SSBN (from the 2nd to the 12th boat) was $ 5,6 billion in prices for the fiscal year 2010, in connection with which work was carried out to reduce this figure to $ 4,9 billion in fiscal 2010 prices. But even with the cost of the new SSBN reduced to the desired figure, analysts believe that the Ohio-type SSBN replacement program will affect the ability of the US Navy to purchase other types of warships at the right pace in the 2020s years and in the early 2030s. The shat congress must consider issues before new boats are brought to life. -the reasons for the postponement of the procurement of SSBN (X) SSBNs for two years (until FY2021) and the possibility of restoring the original plans for the start of their procurement in fiscal 2019, as previously planned under the budget for fiscal year 2012;
              - SSBN (X) SSBN design plan with 16 launch mines for ballistic missiles instead of 20;
              the likelihood that the Navy will be able to reduce the average purchase cost of serial SSBN (X) SSBNs (boats 2–12) and provide it at $ 4,9 billion for each unit in dollars of fiscal 2010;
              accuracy of Navy calculations at the purchase price of each SSBN (X) SSBN;
              - the feasibility of the Ohio type SSBN replacement program and its potential impact on the financing of other US Navy shipbuilding programs;
              identification of those shipyards and shipyards that will build the new generation SSBN (X) SSBN.
              Not everything is so rosy for staff members, as painted in the article.
            2. Refund_SSSR
              Refund_SSSR 29 May 2013 14: 53 New
              +3
              Boats and missiles are enough to cause unacceptable damage, which means to stop the existence of a potential enemy. So what's the difference, 100 boats or 10 will provide nuclear winter and the decline of mankind?
              SNFs are not ordinary weapons and cannot be estimated only from the standpoint of TUPO per capita numbers.
        2. Su24
          Su24 29 May 2013 10: 56 New
          11
          The thing is that the author, for some reason, believes that the country's armed forces should depend only on the total size of the economy calculated by the nominal volume of GDP. But there are still needs. For example, the GDP of Israel and the UK varies by an order of magnitude, and the Sun is comparable. It must also be said that the author uses underestimated data on the current GDP of Russia, and it is necessary to use the planned GDP by PPP, because we are not going to build Boreas in one year. For example, according to the World Bank for 2011, Russia's GDP is 3,134 trillion dollars, against 2,2-2,3 of the UK and France. The author also does not say that England, for example, is building another 2 nuclear aircraft carriers of 3 billion pounds each. Those. even by purely economic criteria there are underestimated data. We can also say that the defense industry sector in our country is more developed than in these countries, the size of government orders and exports is much larger. Also, our defense needs are not taken into account, because we protect ourselves, and France and Great Britain are NATO countries.
          1. dmitreach
            dmitreach 29 May 2013 12: 03 New
            +2
            Su24
            The thing is that the author, for some reason, believes that the country's armed forces should depend only on the total size of the economy calculated by the nominal volume of GDP. But there are still needs. For example, the GDP of Israel and the UK varies by an order of magnitude, and the Sun is comparable. It must also be said that the author uses underestimated data on the current GDP of Russia, and it is necessary to use the planned GDP by PPP, because we are not going to build Boreas in one year. For example, according to the World Bank for 2011, Russia's GDP is 3,134 trillion dollars, against 2,2-2,3 of the UK and France. The author also does not say that England, for example, is building another 2 nuclear aircraft carriers of 3 billion pounds each. Those. even by purely economic criteria there are underestimated data. We can also say that the defense industry sector in our country is more developed than in these countries, the size of government orders and exports is much larger. Also, our defense needs are not taken into account, because we protect ourselves, and France and Great Britain are NATO countries.

            Look at the root! It’s nice to read directly! hi
    2. Nitup
      Nitup 29 May 2013 09: 50 New
      +3
      This is probably Dvorkin composed an article. I remember in one of the editions of the Shock Force, he argued that Russia with its GDP would have enough 4 SSBNs.
      1. Arberes
        Arberes 29 May 2013 10: 00 New
        +4
        Quote: Nitup
        This is probably Dvorkin composed an article. I remember in one of the editions of the Shock Force, he argued that Russia with its GDP would have enough 4 SSBNs.

        What have two of the SSBNs on the hike, and two on scheduled repairs and maintenance with crews on vacation!
        After all, people also need to relax after such long trips? drinks
    3. discard
      discard 29 May 2013 10: 16 New
      -22
      Why should we share the losses of the country's population that are caused not so much by the enemy’s actions as by the defective inhumane policies of the Stalinist regime, which formed an army that outnumbered the enemy’s army in terms of personnel and number of weapons.
      At the same time, the army was created according to the principle of as much as possible, but not as best as possible, but fought according to the simple principle "not a step back", regardless of any losses.
      As a result, assessing the course of the war, Stalin, in 1943 at the Allied conference in Tehran, declared that "Without American production, the United Nations would never have won the war."
      1. Su24
        Su24 29 May 2013 11: 02 New
        +3
        Quote: discard


        Think up more.
      2. wax
        wax 29 May 2013 13: 15 New
        +3
        Stalin could not say this, because there was not yet a second front and there was no United Nations. And in general, from the first days of the war, Stalin was confident in the victory of the USSR over Nazi Germany, the question was only about the price of Victory. "Our cause is right! The enemy will be defeated! Victory will be ours!" - I. Stalin
      3. Denis
        Denis 29 May 2013 17: 21 New
        +2
        Quote: discard
        how much defective inhumane policies of the Stalinist regime,
        Yes, he was neither a democrat nor a liberalist. And by no means, like the whole progressive geyropa, he did not want to give up. As a tyrant, he did not put the country under the adik
        Thinking, not slogans, must be repeated at least sometimes
    4. w.ebdo.g
      w.ebdo.g 29 May 2013 10: 29 New
      +5
      something in the west has such a large per capita income, and the crisis alone is only over, and the second is even steeper gaining momentum ...
      the citizens of these countries lose their jobs, housing, their civil rights, which are taken away under the guise of fighting terrorists ...
      still list?
      and in Russia, the largest country in the world, (and as soon as we were so stupid able to create such a country?), everyone is working poorly and Westerners are vying to teach us how to work and conduct democracy ...
      AND WOULD NOT YOU GO WHERE MAKAR CALVES WON'T DRIVE ?!
      advisers are bad.
      wait a little longer, Russia under Putin’s administration will still be able to break your horns.
      there’s still a little time left, very soon a quiet (soft) revolution will begin to restore Russia's sovereignty.
      then let us drop all those who are set up and nourished by the Westernist liberals.
      it will be fun! Amers understand this, therefore, the company in the media is intensifying on Putin (they incite hatred of their president among young people), the thought is 90% against the president and does everything possible to distort his messages. in the south, terrorist attacks began again. amers are in a hurry ...
      Local officials steal until article 93 prim was returned. will be returned ...)))) soon.
    5. DEfindER
      DEfindER 29 May 2013 12: 00 New
      +1
      Speaking about the Second World War, the author contradicts himself:
      Until now, we are trying to fight in numbers, especially people whose losses during the years of World War II were simply staggering - more than 20 million. We had the most tanks in the world, their number reached 60 thousand.

      That is, we love to fight people, but we have the most tanks in the world, after this phrase the custom nature of the article immediately became clear, and not just the author’s error.
      Well, at the expense of the fact that we need to have nuclear forces like France or England, I somehow did not understand the course of his thought. If our enemy has a population of 2 times that, logically we need to have 2 times more missiles for an adequate answer .. he writes to us enough 4 missile carriers and the United States needs 32, what principles does he consider?
    6. Avenger711
      Avenger711 29 May 2013 13: 39 New
      +1
      Similarly. The author, you see, is another liberal saboteur. In the Kolyma, his place.
    7. Bashkaus
      Bashkaus 29 May 2013 22: 59 New
      0
      In-Vo, this momentik also embarrassed me, not 6,3ml the military casualties of those killed or died from wounds, and this is not 27ml in total, namely 20 i.e. the figure is not here and not here, but completely taken out of my head like all other conjectures.
      If our rockets were as rusty as the author says, we would have been rolled out long ago by trucks throughout the 1/6 of the land
  2. Denis
    Denis 29 May 2013 06: 40 New
    20
    Great advantage for Russia in the area of ​​national territory
    There are only a few who wish to discover something at all. It is not peace treaties, trade cooperation, etc. that are holding them back. etc.
    Only power. Modern, not inferior in anything and capable of such a retaliatory strike, so that I do not even want to
    1. Arberes
      Arberes 29 May 2013 09: 46 New
      +5
      Quote: Denis
      Only power.

      Yes you are right dear Denis (2). hi
      All these international institutions under the guise of the UN and the OSCE are not effective!
      For loshki all this! As world history shows -who has more rights is right; i.e. strength! drinks
      1. dmitreach
        dmitreach 29 May 2013 12: 13 New
        +3
        With a kind word and a revolver you can achieve more than one kind word ...

        To live with wolves - howl like a wolf!
      2. Denis
        Denis 29 May 2013 17: 14 New
        +2
        Quote: Arberes
        UN and OSCE are not effective
        Even as effective, but not in what they were created for. They are very firmly on the side of the various defenders of shit democracy.
  3. DDW
    DDW 29 May 2013 06: 40 New
    12
    Touching missile defense as a counterbalance to the SNF, let us clarify: the successes of the Americans are not as obvious as they frighten us. Now Washington spends approximately 9 – 11 billions of dollars annually on maintaining and developing its missile defense system. What is the result? As the former chief of the Main Staff of the Strategic Missile Forces, Colonel-General Viktor Yesin, notes, the United States will need from five to seven GBI interceptor missiles to intercept a Russian Topol-M ballistic missile. On defense only from the Russian ICBMs of the US territory, they will need a significant group of antimissiles. And this is an almost impracticable program. However, as in the beginning of 70-ies, when the ABM Treaty was signed.

    US successes in missile defense are fairly obvious. And only a fool does not notice it or convinces himself and others of America's missile defense.
    The missile defense is designed to repulse not massive attacks. And not only from Russia ...
    And after a preemptive (or first massive) strike on the strategic nuclear forces of any state, the missile defense system should be capable of eliminating the remaining ICBMs of the enemy on various flight paths. To this America and strive.
    It can take an infinitely long time to talk about the need or not need for certain rockets and carriers. The problem is, THESE ROCKETS JUST HAVE TO BE. those. they must be available, ready to complete the task at any time and ... that's it. Nothing else is needed. This is a deterrent in itself.
    Let's remember the "Scuds" (rather outdated) and their attempts to intercept, not entirely successful, by the way ...
    America needs a simple guarantee - WE WILL BEAT ANYONE, DESTROY THE MAXIMUM POSSIBLE, REFLECT THE RETURN STRIKE GUARANTEED, AND EVERYTHING ... This is where they go. And soon they will try it out. Thank God there are enough countries capable of getting under this "test".
    And hesitating and counting money endlessly ... so you have to feed someone else's army ...
    1. DEfindER
      DEfindER 29 May 2013 15: 03 New
      0
      Quote: DDW
      US successes in missile defense are fairly obvious.

      Moreover, their main success is the shutdown of the Perimeter (Dead Hand) system by Yeltsin at the request of Bush. So in the case of a massive strike against us, the retaliatory strike will be insignificant and the missile defense they create is enough to intercept it ..
  4. Dimy4
    Dimy4 29 May 2013 06: 50 New
    0
    Well, let's leave each of the first forks, and after two more for a slingshot. Cheap and cheerful.
  5. nikolas 83
    nikolas 83 29 May 2013 06: 52 New
    +5
    The article is murky, custom-made, the data which indicates that our boats are standing at the piers and do not go on duty. As said, 5 boats out of 9. And Russia is typically expensive to operate 10 boats. The year is 2011-2012, while Serdyukov was. Shoigu coming I think everything will work out.
    1. wax
      wax 29 May 2013 13: 25 New
      0
      Boats at the piers? And more so that the states were calmer.
  6. Old_kapitan
    Old_kapitan 29 May 2013 06: 54 New
    11
    After reading the methodology for calculating the number of warheads for irreparable damage, I did not begin to read further. Delirium fever ...
    1. avant-garde
      avant-garde 29 May 2013 07: 18 New
      +1
      Yeah especially that smiled lol
      __________________________________
      In the event of a nuclear explosion with a power of one MT, the radius of the complete destruction of ground objects is about four kilometers. One or a few of these charges are enough to destroy large city with a multimillion population and almost the entire infrastructure.
      ____________________________________________
      The author tell me how you are in a radius of 4 (diameter 8) km, will you place a multimillion population ?!
      1. TRex
        TRex 29 May 2013 08: 09 New
        +3
        Put one MT in the center of Chelyabinsk or Yekaterinburg - here you have a million. Five hundred thousand immediately muffled, the rest burnt, irradiated cripples that will die within a month or a couple of weeks. And if you try on Moscow, then a couple of millions ...
        1. PSih2097
          PSih2097 29 May 2013 10: 21 New
          0
          And if you try on Moscow, then a couple of millions ...

          Moscow is then protected by a missile defense belt, unlike Chelyabinsk or Yekaterinburg
        2. leon-iv
          leon-iv 29 May 2013 10: 23 New
          0
          Put one MT in the center of Chelyabinsk or Yekaterinburg - here you have a million.

          no it's not
  7. Per se.
    Per se. 29 May 2013 07: 11 New
    +7
    "Russia today cannot afford the maintenance of dozens of nuclear submarine missile carriers," but what can it afford? You read such quirks, - "Until now, we are trying to fight in numbers, especially people," you immediately recall the army cut down to a critical, destroyed ships, liquidated military universities ... There is monstrous corruption and theft all around, Serdyukov is still at large, but here this taking care of taxpayers! Why do we need so many boats (and not only "Sharks", so hated by the United States) ... In short, the author is at best a naive person, and most likely, this is a pro-American article, a commission.
    1. afire
      afire 29 May 2013 14: 40 New
      0
      site administrators should read such opinions deeper, if they cannot assess the nature of the text, then let them create a kind of working group of "understanding", and if you post this, it is not difficult to guess where we have so many anti-Putinists in the country. We cultivate them ourselves. State censorship management and development is an extremely necessary thing! All the more so for Russia, where people, without really understanding, take some kind of leftist opinion for the truth.
  8. pensioner
    pensioner 29 May 2013 07: 15 New
    +7
    Oh, not Karpenko, he has a surname, not Karpenko ... Carpenter - at least.
    1. Old_kapitan
      Old_kapitan 29 May 2013 08: 27 New
      +6
      Oh, not Karpenko, he has a surname, not Karpenko ... Carpenter - at least.

      Or Karpovich ...
      1. pensioner
        pensioner 29 May 2013 09: 40 New
        0
        No need to offend the Belarusians ... Then a fishman.
        1. grandfather
          grandfather 29 May 2013 10: 38 New
          +2
          with such conclusions, this is not Belarus, but at least a policeman.
        2. rafaelich
          rafaelich 29 May 2013 13: 03 New
          +1
          Karasik ... wink
          1. wax
            wax 29 May 2013 13: 22 New
            +1
            Kudrynets ... fool
          2. Denis
            Denis 29 May 2013 17: 25 New
            +3
            Quote: rafaelich
            Karasik ...
            Then it’s unconventional, only in rhyme, with 3,14 ...
            More poetry!
            1. pensioner
              pensioner 29 May 2013 19: 02 New
              0
              so we will go far ...
  9. evgenii67
    evgenii67 29 May 2013 07: 26 New
    +3
    Hello everyone! I read it completely (although I turned up the entire monitor), but I read it. May cook us hi , there was already an article on "VO" that the country's budget will not pull 20 trl.r and now this provocation, otherwise I can not name this article.
  10. GELEZNII_KAPUT
    GELEZNII_KAPUT 29 May 2013 07: 48 New
    +5
    Everything is upside down. The missile defense is weak, the protection of our missiles is poor, all the equipment will not fit, they compare the Bulava with the Voevoda, there is a 30-year difference between them (_! _), Then the computers were the size of a house, not a good comparison! hi
    1. saturn.mmm
      saturn.mmm 29 May 2013 12: 18 New
      0
      Unfortunately I did not find that article on 24 platforms, but there is something in these links, I apologize for something off topic

      http://dvkapital.ru/specialfeatures/dfo_06.05.2012_4335_rossija-pooschrjaet-razr
      abotku-shelfovykh-mestorozhdenij-uglevodorodov-na-dalnem-vostoke.html
      http://dmitry-v-ch-l.livejournal.com/80976.html?thread=1195088
  11. Straus_zloy
    Straus_zloy 29 May 2013 07: 49 New
    +5
    SLBM “Sineva" could still serve the Fatherland

    the only thing I agree with, the rest is liberalistic nonsense
    1. Nitup
      Nitup 29 May 2013 09: 54 New
      +1
      Quote: Straus_zloy
      SLBM “Sineva" could still serve the Fatherland

      well, so it will serve the fatherland at least until 2025-2030
      1. Old_kapitan
        Old_kapitan 29 May 2013 11: 18 New
        +1
        well, so it will serve the fatherland at least until 2025-2030
        Until 2020 - at least! Another proof of the "competence" of the author.
  12. family tree
    family tree 29 May 2013 07: 52 New
    +9
    Attack from all directions. And money is no longer enough
    Relapse of underwater gigantomania.
    Defense spending is seriously overloading Russia's budget.

    And from the historical side try to repent, they say, they say
    The terrible victory of the terrible general.
    And even Gumilyov with passionarity pulled out
    Woe from illusions
    Just a couple of three such articles and there will come a complete conviction that everything that concerns the army, we are moving in the right direction soldier
  13. fenix57
    fenix57 29 May 2013 07: 54 New
    +5
    "In NATO countries, the defense budget is more open to discussion ..."-as common man I’ll say - it’s not interesting for me how much and where, for me it’s important that I and my close ones can sleep peacefully ...
  14. Burbur
    Burbur 29 May 2013 08: 00 New
    +4
    Another liberoprovokatsionny throw. And let's subtract, say, the amount of government debt from GDP. For the United States and Russia, let’s see if the United States can afford to maintain a missile defense system ...
    1. avant-garde
      avant-garde 29 May 2013 08: 13 New
      +1
      17- US government debt.
      1. saturn.mmm
        saturn.mmm 29 May 2013 10: 08 New
        +5
        Quote: avant-garde
        17- US government debt

        And here the most interesting thing is that Russia is a poor country that does not have enough money for anything, buys government bonds of the USA, the state, in fact, a bankrupt.
        The article does not stand up to any criticism.
        And the author is probably a member of a non-profit organization sponsored with US money that Russia gave to the Americans.
        I remember the classic, "Buratino".
        - As long as there are fools in the world, we began to live with our hands.
        1. rolik
          rolik 29 May 2013 13: 46 New
          +1
          Quote: saturn.mmm
          And here the most interesting thing is that Russia is a poor country that does not have enough money for anything, buys government bonds of the USA, the state, in fact, a bankrupt

          Bought, especially pr Kudrin. This is his thing. China, by the way, also bought mattress bonds. Now he also buys, but much less. But on the other hand, these promissory notes are a very good way to keep these "friends" by their bells. One has only to threaten in time with the presentation of this debt for repayment, as an extra trump card appears in the hands of a conversation with the world democratizer.
          And the fact that now, after the resignation of Kudrin, switched to large purchases of gold. It’s even for the best, it’s more reliable than gold paper.
          1. saturn.mmm
            saturn.mmm 29 May 2013 15: 17 New
            0
            Quote: rolik
            It is only necessary to threaten the presentation of this debt to repayment on time,

            Oh, I don’t know, a country with a military budget of 700 billion by and large did not give a damn about any presentations.
            The Chinese have no where to go, they have all the industry in the United States tied up, the American economy will fall, the Chinese will stall industry.
            Quote: rolik
            little gold is more reliable than paper.
            currently certainly reliable, but gold is too static compared to paper.
      2. PSih2097
        PSih2097 29 May 2013 10: 26 New
        +1
        Quote: avant-garde
        17- US government debt.

        it’s only external, internal twice as much ...
  15. avant-garde
    avant-garde 29 May 2013 08: 03 New
    +4
    It turns out that the burden on a Russian able-bodied citizen is four times greater than in the West. On the other hand, and who will ask him.
    Apparently not that country.
    ____
    It is necessary for the author to chip in a ticket to a TU country! yes Who agrees?!
    1. Old_kapitan
      Old_kapitan 29 May 2013 08: 29 New
      +7
      It is necessary for the author to chip in a ticket to a TU country! yes Who for ?!
      Or maybe just bend and a good pendal?
      1. avant-garde
        avant-garde 29 May 2013 08: 33 New
        +1
        This is if only for prevention, and so I think there isn’t enough a pendel to end up in that country smile
      2. pensioner
        pensioner 29 May 2013 09: 41 New
        +1
        If you bend, it is better to Europe ...
      3. Misantrop
        Misantrop 29 May 2013 10: 32 New
        +2
        Quote: Old_Kapitan
        Or maybe just bend and a good pendal?

        That's it. There is not enough money for the nuclear submarines with ICBMs, there is still money to spend on it. Crawls on foot laughing
    2. Denis
      Denis 29 May 2013 17: 29 New
      +1
      Quote: avant-garde
      It is necessary for the author to chip in a ticket to TU country
      Money for a ticket will soon become a saying. One asked, and then died. Are you talking about this?
      It will be a good tradition
  16. yurypetrunin
    yurypetrunin 29 May 2013 08: 10 New
    +1
    From the taxpayer, his children and grandchildren.
    ================================================
    yurypetrunin RU March 20, 2013 18:42 | Ocean fleet becomes a dream

    Fifth generation boats planned for 2050?
    Is the ocean fleet becoming a dream?
    Is our military potential not enough for the multiple destruction of any potential enemy? Or for causing him unacceptable damage? Or for containment?
    The implementation of these plans for many years will provide interested parties with huge budget funding, and posts, and other preferences ... And new furniture makers on this basis will certainly appear!
    And in 2050 I will be (will there be?) 105 years!
    And everyone has already decided for me, and for my children, for my grandchildren and great-grandchildren!
    And will they be grateful to us for this?
    The present and the next generation will definitely not see these cranes in the sky, and a tit in their hands can die completely.
    Yuri Petrunin. Polar, Gatchina. Veteran of the Armed Forces of the USSR.
    1. Old_kapitan
      Old_kapitan 29 May 2013 08: 34 New
      +2
      We live one day, and, veteran? With such an approach to 2050, not only you, but also Russia will not be. And your children and grandchildren will slander Americans. Or the Chinese ...
      1. yurypetrunin
        yurypetrunin 29 May 2013 15: 31 New
        +1
        We need to give birth to more children, so that there are more grandchildren and subsequent Russians ... Then we will fight off ... I have five plus grandchildren, great-grandchildren are on the way. Everyone I know with stripes has one child each, and that OneChildrenSistem will be limited ... they deal with the LIVING power of Russia, the mind hurts from worries about the country.

        I give the figures of V. Barants, for which there is no reason not to believe.
        If we could build houses, hospitals, kindergartens, schools for those soldiers who are standing now and in the future with stolen and stupidly spent budget war money, then with this technical potential, we can defend Russia with our teeth and bare hands.
        In so ... Will a thick boat stand empty in Gremikha, or where else,
        and the marshal - the son of the marshal will complain ...
        I quote for thought and as a guide to action - give birth to children, defenders of our Motherland!
        ==================================================
        yurypetrunin RU May 27, 2013 19:06 | Defense spending seriously overload the Russian budget

        In Komsomolskaya Pravda No. 126/23071 dated July 15, 2003, the author Viktor Baranets posted the material: "Why are thieves-generals not in prison?"
        Short exposure.
        "Today, there are 1380 generals and admirals in the Russian army ... Every tenth person allowed" criminality ". This has not happened in the entire 300-year history of the Armed Forces ..."
        For stolen money (KP from 15.07.03, then this information, as now, was printed)
        "we could buy (optional):
        - airplanes - 40,
        - tanks - more than 100,
        - SAM type s-300 - more than 30
        - nuclear submarines -4-5,
        - DBK - more than 15,
        - residential 100-apartment buildings 12-13. "End of quotation.
        A list of these figures is given, and found his former colleagues. They live inside the Garden Ring, all in chocolate, asking for contact. Sending to ...
        Look at the newspaper, maybe you say hello to one of them by the hand?
        I appeal to Viktor Barents with a request to duplicate the material here and tell about the fate of the defendants in his material. So as not to appear from now on
        thieves in uniform and figures sucking into the military budget.

        On the topic of defense spending and budget deficits.
        Raise the thieves, and there will be no shortage for our Armed Forces.
        I trust our Supreme Commander-in-Chief - HE WILL RISE!

        Yuri Petrunin, Veteran of the USSR Armed Forces, Polyarny, Gatchina
  17. Santa Fe
    Santa Fe 29 May 2013 08: 22 New
    +1
    A very interesting tablet is the distribution of the number of military patrols of domestic SSBNs.

    It clearly follows from the graph that all the current screams about "getting up from their knees" and "strengthening the country" are a common bluff and philistine propaganda. In the "dashing nineties" under the "drunk borisk" the fleet performed many times more combat patrols and represented a real force. And all the modern talk about "patriotism" and "strengthening the army" is a blatant lie and an attempt to steal money under a patriotic whistle
    1. avant-garde
      avant-garde 29 May 2013 08: 31 New
      +2
      Convincingly, especially if you look at the name of the author of this plate !!! And the tablet can be compiled on the basis of data that the United States was able to get, and what remained hidden from their eyes, what would the tablet look like?
    2. Old_kapitan
      Old_kapitan 29 May 2013 08: 41 New
      +4
      Did you not pay attention to the fact that just then a dashing dive began and by 2001 the patrolling safely "lay on the ground"? And it was only by 2005 that a tangible "emergence" began? So it’s you who are telling lies (or rather, half-truths, which is much more dangerous).
      1. avant-garde
        avant-garde 29 May 2013 08: 45 New
        +1
        Do not be offended, but I did not understand your post hi
      2. Santa Fe
        Santa Fe 29 May 2013 09: 08 New
        0
        Quote: Old_Kapitan
        And it was only by 2005 that a tangible "emergence" began?

        but from 2008 there is a noticeable decline
        Quote: avant-garde
        Convincingly, especially if you look at the name of the author of this plate !!!

        Yes, this is useless, there are other (purely Russian) sources - the data are the same.

        Under EBN, no matter how you would like to believe in it, the fleet carried out many times more military patrols
        1. Old_kapitan
          Old_kapitan 29 May 2013 09: 55 New
          +2
          but from 2008 there is a noticeable decline
          At the beginning of the 80, only on the 41th division of the SSBN were there 11 airborne aircraft. There was also funding. It is not surprising that at least 1-2 boards of only our division were constantly at sea. Then came the traitor Bear. What else to go on, but for what - no longer. Then Bear started, and Borka successfully continued to make gramophone needles from ship iron. So it’s still surprising that with such a presence of the remaining iron, they also go to sea.
        2. Misantrop
          Misantrop 29 May 2013 10: 37 New
          +1
          Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
          Under EBN, no matter how you would like to believe in it, the fleet carried out many times more military patrols

          Then the iron was newer, and Soviet-era graduates (significantly better prepared) were sitting at the consoles. Yes, and still spare parts remained in the warehouses, then stocked up
    3. Alexander Romanov
      Alexander Romanov 29 May 2013 08: 46 New
      +7
      Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
      In the "dashing nineties" with "borisk" drunkard, the fleet made many times more combat patrols

      I can tell you that under the EBN the fleet practically stood at the wall. Each exit was a holiday. During the period of 94–96, one "long voyage" was made from KTOF. Kreiser "Chervona Ukraine" was driven to Vladik and that's all hi
      Moreover, there were three exits of diesel boats and two atomic boats.
      Do not look at the graphics on the internet, they are amateur!
      1. Santa Fe
        Santa Fe 29 May 2013 09: 04 New
        +1
        Quote: Alexander Romanov
        I can tell you that with EBN the fleet practically stood against the wall.

        From the history of the nuclear submarine K-456 "Tver"
        August 18 - September 14, 1993, the crew of the submarine transferred the Pl K-456 by the northern sea route under the ice of the Arctic from the North to the Pacific Fleet. The commander of the crew, Captain 1st Rank Arkady Petrovich Efanov, was awarded the title of Hero of the Russian Federation with the Gold Star medal for courage and heroism displayed during the performance of a special mission in conditions fraught with risk to life.
        In 1993, 1994, 1998, she won the Navy Civil Code prize for missile shooting at sea targets.
        In 1994, she completed the tasks of autonomous combat service in the Central Atlantic.
        In 1995, she completed the tasks of autonomous combat service in the Sargasso Sea.
        In June 1999 she took part in the West-99 exercise.


        Tell all this is a lie? sailors are mortally offended by you
        Quote: Alexander Romanov
        For the period 94, one "long-distance trip" was made with KTOF. Kreiser "Chervona Ukraine" was overtaken to Vladik and all

        But in the north in 1996 there was a movement - the trip of the KSF OBK to the Atlantic and Mediterranean - the debut of the aircraft-carrying cruiser "Kuznetsov"
        Quote: Alexander Romanov
        Do not look at the graphics on the internet, they are amateur!

        Well, Alexander, these are questions of faith.

        The most interesting thing is that the graph completely coincides with the facts - just familiarize yourself with the history of each atomarina
        1. Alexander Romanov
          Alexander Romanov 29 May 2013 09: 15 New
          +4
          Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

          The most interesting thing is that the graph completely coincides with the facts - just familiarize yourself with the history of each atomarina

          You carefully read my post again, it says that 1994-1996! find no coincidence this time.
          Second, do you really think that each submarine or diesel exit to the sea will be advertised?
          Once again I say, the bullshit schedule is FULL !!! No one has yet canceled the window dressing.
        2. leon-iv
          leon-iv 29 May 2013 10: 29 New
          0
          The most interesting thing is that the graph completely coincides with the facts - just familiarize yourself with the history of each atomarina

          Yeah, and then the question arises of their technical condition.
    4. Per se.
      Per se. 29 May 2013 09: 24 New
      +2
      Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
      In the "dashing nineties" with "borisk drunk" the fleet made many times more military patrols and was a real force.
      Simply, the great country did not die right away, as the fleet still had from Soviet power. If Boris Nikolayevich had been in power longer (although in reality it was not he who ruled the country, the advisers and friends of the United States ruled), we would now have nothing left at all. What they began to do with the army and navy under Yeltsin, even with Serdyukov's thieving "reforms" cannot be compared in terms of the damage done.
    5. leon-iv
      leon-iv 29 May 2013 10: 27 New
      0
      A very interesting tablet is the distribution of the number of military patrols of domestic SSBNs.

      procrastinated her repeatedly in various forums. KOH 0,6 is clearly utopia realistically 0,4-0,5. Yes, and the meaning of strongly tearing the anus from us is the basis of land strategic nuclear forces.
  18. fenix57
    fenix57 29 May 2013 09: 01 New
    0
    Quote: avant-garde
    17- US government debt.

    Here is for the "seed":Interrogation of Fed spokesman Scott Alvarez at a hearing held by Congressman Ron Paul proved that the US Federal Reserve has no gold to secure the dollar
    “The Federal Reserve does not own any gold at all. We have not owned gold since 1934, so we did not participate in any transactions with gold ... What is reflected on our balance sheet is gold certificates ... Until 1934, the Federal Reserve owned gold. We transferred it, according to the law, to the Treasury and received these gold certificates in return ”
    see http: //oko-planet.su/finances/financesnews/187342-oficialnoe-zayavlenie-frs-n
    ikakogo-zolota-u-nih-net.html
  19. Hort
    Hort 29 May 2013 09: 01 New
    0
    and who said that the same ballistic missiles cannot be used in a conventional war? Set non-nuclear warhead forward
    1. alex20081308
      alex20081308 29 May 2013 09: 35 New
      +1
      It's like shooting gold. In general, dig a little deeper so as not to get out with such mistakes
      1. pensioner
        pensioner 29 May 2013 09: 46 New
        +1
        Quote: alex20081308
        It's like shooting gold.

        In price, it will be more expensive ... Lunar soil!
    2. Nayhas
      Nayhas 29 May 2013 11: 45 New
      +1
      It is possible, only the neighbors will not understand and can answer with fright already from the nuclear warhead. Any launch of an ICBM is agreed in advance with Europe and the United States.
      1. Hort
        Hort 29 May 2013 12: 00 New
        +1
        Well, I know that with other owners of nuclear weapons such things are coordinated.
        But as one of the ways to dispose of old missiles)
  20. rennim
    rennim 29 May 2013 09: 05 New
    0
    The article is interesting, although not without mistakes. It is evident that the author conducted a thorough analysis. I doubt that the article is custom-made. In any case, the Russian Defense Ministry and the General Staff will be interested in this article. And even better if they communicate with the author. Opinion from the side is always not superfluous ... whether it is erroneous or not. hi
  21. avant-garde
    avant-garde 29 May 2013 09: 17 New
    +6
    “The actions of the submarine forces of the Navy, the routes of their campaigns, and especially military service, are not covered in official reports and are classified information even after decades,” the Russian Defense Ministry’s press service and information department reported.
    __________
    So where can such graphs come from ????
    1. alex20081308
      alex20081308 29 May 2013 09: 53 New
      0
      For people who served in the Navy, such things are forgiven according to open information, with a fairly small degree of error
  22. Shadowcat
    Shadowcat 29 May 2013 09: 18 New
    +4
    Something recently, articles on the topic "Let's reduce the budget to the military ..." began to appear in large quantities, while the authors forget the simple truth derived by Napoleon "Who does not feed his army, feeds someone else's."
    1. alex20081308
      alex20081308 29 May 2013 09: 51 New
      +3
      There is a concept of reasonable sufficiency. You need to feed the army. But throwing money down the drain behind the fact that we do not need to feed the army.
      1. Misantrop
        Misantrop 29 May 2013 10: 40 New
        +1
        Quote: alex20081308
        There is a concept of reasonable sufficiency.
        But only its criteria are developed, alas, by absolutely unreasonable people request
    2. mirror
      mirror 29 May 2013 15: 42 New
      0
      So only the people have the right to ask: what are you guys doing on my grub? And Napoleon in the end made France feed her army first, and then foreign ones. Including, as you know, and Russian :-)
  23. sys-1985
    sys-1985 29 May 2013 09: 22 New
    +1
    The author tried to the best of his abilities, too stupidly naive sayings.
  24. alex20081308
    alex20081308 29 May 2013 09: 33 New
    0
    In general, the author’s train of thought is correct. We did not count and continue to not count money. We built the lead boat, which had been under construction for 20 years, adopted a new ICBM, and screamed to the whole world that we had made a breakthrough. Here it is a new perfect weapon. Russia will defeat everyone and so on. How much I wrote that for a start it would be necessary to run a boat around. How she will behave on a long hike, how systems and mechanisms will work, how weapons will behave in mines, under conditions of a long hike. What are the real possibilities for US boats to detect it. Etc. And only after that, taking into account all the comments, build the following buildings. step on the same rake. Go-go. Give-give. Where are we in a hurry ???? There are BDRMs and there will still be enough for 7-8 years. There is time. URA-patriotism, built on slogans, is more harmful than the lack of patriotism. To the author plus.
    1. djon3volta
      djon3volta 29 May 2013 10: 07 New
      -1
      Quote: alex20081308
      URA-patriotism, built on slogans, is more harmful than the lack of patriotism.

      looked yesterday Special correspondent? ask those heroes who in 1993 fought off the Taliban on the Tajik-Afghan border, had patriotism or not.

      1. alex20081308
        alex20081308 29 May 2013 10: 09 New
        +2
        I'm talking about Thomas, and you're talking about Yerema. What is your last post ????
    2. Misantrop
      Misantrop 29 May 2013 10: 41 New
      0
      Quote: alex20081308
      We built the head boat, which was under construction for 20 years

      Was it built for 20 years? Or did she just take the slipway?
      1. alex20081308
        alex20081308 29 May 2013 10: 45 New
        0
        Both.
    3. Shadowcat
      Shadowcat 29 May 2013 15: 10 New
      +1
      Quote: alex20081308
      Where are we in a hurry ???? There are BDRMs and there will still be enough for 7-8 years.

      And what will happen and change over these 10 years?
      And I can’t understand how you can compare the 2nd generation submarine (667BDRM Dolphin laid in from 80 to 90th) and 4th (955 Northwind created now)?
      Compare Liner and Mace? Liquid and Solid fuel, the latter is weaker, but less toxic and after refueling it serves longer without maintenance. In addition, the Mace, as it is strange, is smaller in size, unlike the Liner (12.1m x 2m versus 15m x 1.9m, respectively)
      Tell me where is "Hurray-patriotism" and excessive investment in the army renewal? Poke your nose at me because I can't see it.
      1. alex20081308
        alex20081308 29 May 2013 15: 20 New
        0
        Well, firstly, BDRM is already the third generation. Secondly, both the boat and weapons have been repeatedly tested in the conditions of military service. And I have a counter question: how can you compare the advertising TTX boats and weapons with what is actually checked. Inattentive. I ask, who knows how a boat and weapons will behave in a military campaign ?????? How do you know this ????? I poke my nose. It is necessary to first break in, and then build the subsequent building. By the way, to date, the sense of the fact that Borey in the fleet is 0 whole, hell tenths, since weapons for him have not yet been produced.
        1. Shadowcat
          Shadowcat 29 May 2013 19: 08 New
          0
          Quote: alex20081308
          Well, firstly, the BDM is the third generation.

          Nda? We have from the 3rd generation of current Shark, Dolphin according to Wiki 2nd.
          Quote: alex20081308
          Secondly, both the boat and weapons were repeatedly tested in the conditions of military service.

          And what prevents these check? time? Duc is the problem that we don’t have the 4th to wait. Therefore, Dolphins are on duty while the Boreas are built and run in.
          Quote: alex20081308
          and how can you compare the advertising performance characteristics of boats and weapons with what is actually verified.

          Great move! Failing to make anything answer. At least I have provided advertising. So, please kindly provide real as you put it.
          Quote: alex20081308
          How do you know this ?????

          And how do you know that it will not work?
          Quote: alex20081308
          By the way, at the moment, the sense of the fact that Borey in the fleet is 0 whole, hell tenths,

          Esseno recently lowered the prototype of the current, tested it, and now it is already being mass-produced because there is no better, and there is no time to invent the best either.
          1. alex20081308
            alex20081308 30 May 2013 08: 34 New
            -2
            There is no point in discussing further. You are far enough from the fleet. Vika is not an argument for me in this matter, since I have access to independent management, including BDRM ...
  25. Dymkovsky
    Dymkovsky 29 May 2013 10: 15 New
    +3
    The author expressed his opinion, distinct from the majority opinion on the resource, which is doubly interesting. And right or wrong, another question. Listening to the views of either side is always necessary and useful. Plus to the author.
    1. Misantrop
      Misantrop 29 May 2013 10: 46 New
      +5
      Quote: Dymkovsky
      The author expressed his opinion
      Here are just the arguments for its justification brought SO crappy (excuse me) ... How old is this author that he does not even suspect the possibility of the existence of military blocs? Or that the same Libya was bombed by more than one country. The crowd piled on. In Libya, the armed forces were quite sufficient to successfully repel ANY of the neighbors in the region. Did it help her much?
  26. dimon-media
    dimon-media 29 May 2013 10: 28 New
    0
    Before publishing, the author must think with his head about what you write. How much have you sold?
  27. Kiliny
    Kiliny 29 May 2013 10: 31 New
    +1
    Kudrin wrote the article for sure.
    1. dimon-media
      dimon-media 29 May 2013 10: 38 New
      +1
      The article is the purest ordering. Provocation. Paid from the accounts of NPOs.
  28. Dr.Serg
    Dr.Serg 29 May 2013 10: 52 New
    +2
    A strange article ... and the numbers are even stranger ... when, in what period of time during the Great Patriotic War, the Soviet Union had 60000 tanks available !? After that I read the article with great difficulty ... it would be interesting to hear the author's "authoritative" conclusions - so how many boats do we need? 1,2,3 ... or is it easier to remove the defense industry altogether, cut and saw everything - the economy will be amazing and the country will heal happily and calmly, all around there are friends and loyal allies and apple trees will bloom on Mars?
  29. v53993
    v53993 29 May 2013 10: 53 New
    +5
    "Russia cannot afford the maintenance of dozens of nuclear submarine missile carriers today"

    But can we afford Abramovich, Chubais and other oligarchs?
  30. indiggo
    indiggo 29 May 2013 10: 58 New
    +4
    I read it became disgusting how generally I allowed this to become xs, I agree with many that this is about the paid article. It means that we are only going in the right direction !!! Russia has only 2 allies Army and Navy ...
    1. mirror
      mirror 29 May 2013 14: 54 New
      0
      Russia would have ever gained an allied powerful modern economy ... But without it, there would be no army or navy.
  31. Avenich
    Avenich 29 May 2013 11: 41 New
    +2
    For 20 years we were told that the military-industrial complex was destroying the country's economy. But it turns out to be the other way around: the military-industrial complex did not become, and there was no industry, science or education. Now they tell us: we do not need tanks, planes, ships, submarines, missiles and, God forbid, combat ekranoplanes. That is, they knock out the remnants, for which the people who are busy maintaining this equipment still hold on. At the same time, we completely calmly surrender the "Kemsky volost" (c). What has to do with how accurately the idea of ​​the failure of the state to maintain military equipment is brought up. Similarly, 20 years ago, they wrote about space, for example. Tomorrow they will write that it is not profitable for the state to support the inhabitants of the country.
  32. ed65b
    ed65b 29 May 2013 11: 48 New
    +2
    Most recently, one of the largest naval long-term construction projects was completed, the implementation of which the country took almost 20 years to complete. They adopted the nuclear submarine Yuri Dolgoruky, the lead SSBN of project 955 Borey, as well as the Bulava, a sea-launched solid-fuel missile.

    I would like to note that it ended and could not finish and could cut. Remember what Russia was the same 20 years ago. Now again we push our locomotive that rode on its own and in the absence of the driver and stoker lowered the steam and almost stopped. And thank God that the time of devastation and unprincipled politicking has ended, and there God will give everything slowly set up.
  33. Alexey M
    Alexey M 29 May 2013 11: 59 New
    0
    I don’t get the boats, why didn’t they slash the new ones. And of course it’s expensive to maintain the army. We need to cut generals down with deputies and other war budget eaters.
  34. abc_alex
    abc_alex 29 May 2013 12: 17 New
    +2
    The article is stupid, the author senselessly juggles with figures, putting forward fantastically and absurd projects.

    What does it mean, for example, to "skip" the PL generation? Is it like trying to make the T-50 without making the Su-27 and MiG-29?
    But even if "skipped", the author asked how much does one promising nuclear submarine cost from the United States?

    Strange logic in counting the number of warheads. The author was puzzled to study the concept of retaliation? He is aware that strategic nuclear forces should be calculated not only on a preemptive strike, but also on a RESPONSE strike? Provided that part of the ground launchers and carriers are already destroyed? Nuclear submarines are good for guaranteeing a retaliatory strike!
    The author is right that ships should go to sea and be on alert, but claim that nuclear submarines should become marine exotics in a single copy - a misunderstanding of the strategic nuclear forces doctrine. Perhaps dozens of missile carriers of different models are really not needed, but a reasonable number of the same type of nuclear-armed boat on board should not be counted on the fingers of one hand.
  35. antikilller55
    antikilller55 29 May 2013 12: 25 New
    0
    I honestly didn’t even read the complete nonsense to the end (((
  36. Urcom
    Urcom 29 May 2013 12: 30 New
    0
    Quote: Su24
    The thing is that the author, for some reason, believes that the country's armed forces should depend only on the total size of the economy calculated by the nominal volume of GDP. But there are still needs. For example, the GDP of Israel and the UK varies by an order of magnitude, and the Sun is comparable. It must also be said that the author uses underestimated data on the current GDP of Russia, and it is necessary to use the planned GDP by PPP, because we are not going to build Boreas in one year. For example, according to the World Bank for 2011, Russia's GDP is 3,134 trillion dollars, against 2,2-2,3 of the UK and France. The author also does not say that England, for example, is building another 2 nuclear aircraft carriers of 3 billion pounds each. Those. even by purely economic criteria there are underestimated data. We can also say that the defense industry sector in our country is more developed than in these countries, the size of government orders and exports is much larger. Also, our defense needs are not taken into account, because we protect ourselves, and France and Great Britain are NATO countries.

    Of course, a competent comment, but the author of the article liked the very principle of calculating our economic capabilities in the field of defense, although he uses crafty numbers.
    According to this principle, our military response, without prejudice to the economy, should be cheaper than the adversary difference in GDP. I think this is unrealistic, but this should be sought.
    1. abc_alex
      abc_alex 29 May 2013 13: 06 New
      +1
      Yes? And this is how I apologize. One submarine against 8 staff. And 1 plane versus 8? The ratios of the missiles are 1 to 8 and 1 war block against their 8. 2 GLONASS satellites, against 16 GPS. The size of the division or corps is 8 times smaller than that of the United States? Or do you believe that the calculation of the price for a unit should come from a ratio of 1: 8? So according to your logic, small arms of the Russian army should cost almost $ 100 per barrel.

      There are compounds that can either be in a certain composition or they simply do not exist. And a weapon is one that either costs certain money, or it is already another weapon.
      1. Urcom
        Urcom 29 May 2013 14: 00 New
        +1
        Of course, a direct juxtaposition of our two satellites against their 16 in this particular case will not work, but is it not right to try to solve the problem of our defense without quantitative parity with NATO, or even just with the USA? Actually, this is our only way out, otherwise, we’ll just tear ourselves economically. But we do not repeat the quantitative indicators of the Amer surface fleet? Yes, our fleet is slowly but surely being updated, but even after the completion of all armament programs, it will be inferior in capabilities to AI, however, it will allow us to create a concentration of force in the problematic area for us, will divert the huge financial resources of Amers to neutralize the potential of our ships, and in general, simply by its mere presence will not allow AI to do outrage. Our anti-ship missiles on PETER GREAT + Ash-tree against their AUG will probably lose the battle, but the minke whales will not be sweet. And Petya in combination with one Ash-tree will be cheaper than AUG.
        While there are no direct military operations between our countries, and I think we will avoid a global conflict, all clashes between our countries take place on an economic plane, and here, first of all, we should not lose.
  37. Sergey_K
    Sergey_K 29 May 2013 13: 48 New
    +2
    I read the article - I concluded that we need to optimize defense spending. Here the field is not plowed, everyone understands that now the entire defense ecosystem is inefficient. in order to make it effective, an approach is needed as in a commercial structure. We need good managers to attract new technologies and people. in the current scenario, no one will do this - because there is no point. They will buy it like that - they will die like that. But when the compensation for the death of a soldier to the family will be like in Europe / USA - then many will think about it. Now the family of the deceased warrior is on the sidelines of life.
    The army cannot be reduced. A large racket is coming and we need to approach it, at least as we approached the Second World War.
    1. Misantrop
      Misantrop 29 May 2013 15: 26 New
      +1
      Quote: Sergey_K
      in order to make it effective, an approach is needed as in a commercial structure. Looking for good managers

      One "effective manager" was barely kicked out. He has already over-optimized that now it is necessary to rake for years. The commercial structure is focused on GETTING PROFITS WHEN USING ITS POTENTIAL. What profits are you going to achieve with an ICBM strike?
  38. Umnichka
    Umnichka 29 May 2013 14: 01 New
    -1
    It is a strong impression that the Americans paid the article to the author, although in reality he is detached from his roots, he doesn’t understand the history of his people (he doesn’t understand - the next victim of educational experiments such as the Unified State Examination), which cannot be compared technically. In short - a criminal article, because if you prepare our Armed Forces - the OST plan has not been canceled, and, sorry for directness, we’ll wash ourselves with plenty of blood, Europe’s intentions could not change for the better in the shortest historical period of time, they are simply veiled for a variety of reasons. No one is seriously going to attack them - who needs them? And we are a tidbit for all neo-neo-colonialists, and psychologically we press on their psyche: we, for example, took Berlin more than once and they conquered each other many times, and with us all of Europe sometimes won local victories, but never conquered the only ones on the continent. This is not a rattling of arms, it is a necessity - they fought with each other according to the rules and will fight, and they will destroy us by 70-80 percent, so that only the service staff remains to ensure energy supplies, etc. Hence, calculations are needed not comparative, but to guarantee our survival with you. They have other tasks, including predatory in order to survive, and our task is not to allow ourselves to be captured, so that we can survive. Diplomats are obliged to speak beautifully and around, but we need to clearly understand the situation. Otherwise tryndets, they will remember everything for us, both right and wrong. Our people have two friends.
  39. tol100v
    tol100v 29 May 2013 14: 01 New
    0
    I absolutely agree that the article is ordered (cliches and stamps)! It is completely incorrect to compare the GDP of the "allies" countries due to the residual reality and effectiveness of the military-industrial complex of the USSR (they could not ruin EVERYTHING even in a quarter of a century) !!!
  40. Vtel
    Vtel 29 May 2013 14: 37 New
    0
    Russia today can not afford the contents of dozens of nuclear submarine missile carriers

    Nahai Yankees consider their greens. Russia was - is and will be a tough nut for them. The most amazing thing is that with total theft at our tops, we are still building new weapons and modernizing the old and Thank God.
  41. mirror
    mirror 29 May 2013 14: 49 New
    +1
    Colleagues are military! You can cover as much as you like on the author’s mother, but he said one right thing - stretch your legs on clothes. That is, the arms program stretch on the power of the economy. On this, the USSR broke. And one more correct thing the author said - the Soviet misfortune with an inefficient, let’s say, attitude to resources turned into the same Russian misfortune. We do not know how to take business so far, and unfortunately act too.
    You can, of course, shout and demand that the state spend all the money on defense. Only on what will the country develop? And so the infrastructure is dead, almost nothing was built expensively, despite the "fat years", unlike the Chinese autobahns and highways. So it is necessary to demand from the state accelerated development and modernization of the economy in order to quickly create effective armed forces that meet today's challenges and threats.
    Look, today wars are waged in the markets for market positions, for the share of international financial flows - whoever fights better offers something very necessary, he gets the most money. What do we offer today? Right: oil, gas, roundwood. Well, a weapon yet. And that’s all. Well, at least, they have become powerful exporters of grain. But this is not enough, terribly little. Our market forces are weak - and market generals (except that oil and gas are coping so far) are none so far, Napoleon and Suvorov are not visible among them, and the soldiers of these battles are weak.
    That's who it is necessary to demand from them that they are on a par with the world level, that they bring big money to Russia, and that this money is enough for everything, for SSBNs, and for other submarines, and for missiles. And most importantly, for those who serve, they are rarely mentioned in our domestic tradition. This is what the state needs to demand, not the author to blame.
    1. Misantrop
      Misantrop 29 May 2013 15: 33 New
      +4
      Quote: Spiegel
      stretch legs on clothes. That is, the arms program stretch on the power of the economy. On this, the USSR broke.

      Maybe it's enough to repeat Gaidar's fables? "The USSR has overstrained", "impoverished", "ruined", etc. And those who shouted it the loudest became billionaires (dollar) in a few years. And they did not manage to eat the remnants of this impoverishment for 20 years. the USSR BROKEN, moreover, purposefully. For several years, instead of competent leadership, they made economic sabotage, loaded the population with carefully selected lies. And now they tell fables designed for naive idiots. Moreover, here they can not resist the fake numbers and statistics curve
      1. Sergey_K
        Sergey_K 29 May 2013 15: 48 New
        -1
        It’s not necessary to make an idol from the USSR. He was far from ideal, like everyone else ...
        1. Misantrop
          Misantrop 29 May 2013 16: 15 New
          +1
          Quote: Sergey_K
          He was far from ideal, like everyone else ...
          Then WHAT HEROF is the organization of society in the USA and Great Britain presented precisely as IDEAL? By drunkness or stupidity, having stuck in a pole, you will also begin to shout that it was the machine that was to blame? The USSR was far from ideal, no one argues. But he was immeasurably farther from the black grotesque that they are trying to present him now.
    2. Sergey_K
      Sergey_K 29 May 2013 15: 44 New
      -2
      I support. Only here you need to add the situation in the world. Economic power is in no way inferior to military power. Plus the army, this is a consequence of the desire of the population to protect their wealth, no more.
      This forum does not support you. I haven’t left the cons yet))
    3. Dr.Serg
      Dr.Serg 29 May 2013 19: 33 New
      +1
      Partly agree ... but partly ... what is primary? Military or economic power? Example ... The Barents Sea, while the USSR was, our sailors calmly fished, explored the shelf for oil and gas, the Union weakened and collapsed, there are no ships even to protect their economic interests, what’s the result? The dwarf Norwegian fleet drives our trawlers, Mr. Medvedev gave the Norgs a large piece of the water area, Svalbard has become almost Norwegian ... but would there be a powerful fleet and political will? What economic benefits would a country from this region have? The answer is, yes, just huge !! on this my opinion, the cost of defense, will pay off in the economy a hundredfold!
  42. gregor6549
    gregor6549 29 May 2013 14: 50 New
    0
    Again, we are not looking for the meaning in the article, but the person of what nationality its author is. The lesson, of course, is very exciting, especially since it does not require special technical knowledge. I called Karpenko Fishman and get your 20 pluses. In fact, the author is right. There was simply no other way how to compensate for the shitty quality with a large amount. Well, we didn’t get the same sea-launched ballistic missiles in the same dimensions as similar American missiles. And the task was simple: nosebleed, and by tomorrow so that it would be. So they did it as it turned out, and not as it wanted. Yes, and with the quality of what had already been done, there were seams. The same nuclear submarines spent more time under repair than they spent in combat service. True, the repair also had to wait. After all, Sudprom, back in the early 50s, managed to free himself, his beloved, from the tasks of repairing his "high-quality" products, which, as a rule, were handed over to the Customer at the end of the year, sometimes to the chimes. Many samples of military equipment and weapons were launched into serial or mass production before the end of the prescribed test cycle, and then they were refined for many months and years in the army, often burying their "exploiters" under the rubble. For example, it got to the point that the MIG23 was delivered to the military unit disassembled and already in the military unit they were assembled and debugged by local technicians with teams of "industrialists", many of whom also acquired families there (sometimes second ones). For the rest, beautiful marquise, all is well, all is well
    1. Misantrop
      Misantrop 29 May 2013 22: 33 New
      +2
      Quote: gregor6549
      The same nuclear submarines were in repair more time than they were in military service.

      Where is this information from? In all my service, I don’t remember many months of repairs, and none of my colleagues shared similar ones. Rarely did it turn out that it was possible to carve out more than a month and a half on the MPO and MPR (without taking the ship out of the line, by the crew). Enough with others mindlessly repeating that if the nuclear submarine is not autonomous, then it is faulty. Or did you never come across the concept of a "permanent readiness force"?
  43. Sergey_K
    Sergey_K 29 May 2013 15: 39 New
    0
    Quote: Misantrop
    Quote: Sergey_K
    in order to make it effective, an approach is needed as in a commercial structure. Looking for good managers

    One "effective manager" was barely kicked out. He has already over-optimized that now it is necessary to rake for years. The commercial structure is focused on GETTING PROFITS WHEN USING ITS POTENTIAL. What profits are you going to achieve with an ICBM strike?

    Well, why say so. It was a thief. What does the profit and strike of ICBMs have to do with it? This refers to the cycle of construction, maintenance and modernization. Here there must be fierce competition. And we have a management crisis, which is why MiG is combined with SU, etc. The system at this stage is not viable!
    1. Misantrop
      Misantrop 29 May 2013 22: 20 New
      +1
      Quote: Sergey_K
      This refers to the cycle of construction, maintenance and modernization. Here there must be fierce competition.
      WHAT else is "competition"? In what? Warranty and post-warranty maintenance of the equipment should be carried out by the MANUFACTURER, and not by some theoretical "competitors". If a neighbor in the garage crawls under the hood of your warranty car shouting "I will do better and cheaper than in the company service!" A fighter or nuclear submarine is somewhat more complicated than a passenger car. Do you see a lot of competition in the maintenance of US military equipment? And there, God himself ordered the use of competition, there she has a "nest"
      Competition is a good medicine, only a prescription is required for its use. And if you start it thoughtlessly advise wherever you go, the result will be sad to the dumbbell. Tell your wife that her monopoly is not applicable for the successful birth of your child, and you want to compete, how long will this family life last? lol
  44. Odysseus
    Odysseus 29 May 2013 17: 22 New
    +2
    This article is idiocy or betrayal. The reasons here have already been indicated. Briefly again
    1) It is absurd to assess the nuclear potential of Great Britain and France, forgetting that these are NATO members. In reality, we have 22 NATO boats against 8 of ours (without Dolgoruky).
    2) It is absurd to evaluate naval nuclear forces regardless of the state of the rest of the fleet. NATO has a huge advantage in other naval weapons. Which means that their boats can operate without opposition while ours are actually locked in basing areas.
    3) It is absolutely ridiculous to estimate the number of necessary boats by the amount of cash flow (GDP). The amount of necessary weapons depends on the needs of the state, which in turn depend on the goals that this state sets.
    4) Our potential is exaggerated - all our boats are still Soviet-made, on two very old missiles, 1-2 more all the time under repair / modernization. Only 4-5 remain. Given their rare exits to the database (the author is right here), we in fact, there is a real shortage of missile carriers.
    5) The potential of the American missile defense system is incorrectly estimated. NATO has a huge superiority in conventional weapons plus bases around the world. The essence of their strategy is the possibility of delivering a sudden "global strike", while missile defense intercepts residual enemy missile launches. It is clear that SSBN bases will be the primary targets. Under these conditions, even if we manage to bring the KOH to 0,5 (which requires a lot of investment in infrastructure), 8 Boreyev will not be excessive, but extremely insufficient, all the more so as China with its ever-growing potential must be taken into account.
  45. yurypetrunin
    yurypetrunin 29 May 2013 20: 48 New
    0
    We need to give birth to more children, so that there are more grandchildren and subsequent Russians ... Then we will fight off ... I have five plus grandchildren, great-grandchildren are on the way. Everyone I know with stripes has one child each, and that OneChildrenSistem will be limited ... they deal with the LIVING power of Russia, the mind hurts from worries about the country.

    I give the figures of V. Barants, for which there is no reason not to believe.
    If we could build houses, hospitals, kindergartens, schools for those soldiers who are standing now and in the future with stolen and stupidly spent budget war money, then with this technical potential, we can defend Russia with our teeth and bare hands.
    In so ... Will a thick boat stand empty in Gremikha, or where else,
    and the marshal - the son of the marshal will complain ...
    I quote for thought and as a guide to action - give birth to children, defenders of our Motherland!
    ==================================================
    yurypetrunin RU May 27, 2013 19:06 | Defense spending seriously overload the Russian budget

    In Komsomolskaya Pravda No. 126/23071 dated July 15, 2003, the author Viktor Baranets posted the material: "Why are thieves-generals not in prison?"
    Short exposure.
    "Today, there are 1380 generals and admirals in the Russian army ... Every tenth person allowed" criminality ". This has not happened in the entire 300-year history of the Armed Forces ..."
    For stolen money (KP from 15.07.03, then this information, as now, was printed)
    "we could buy (optional):
    - airplanes - 40,
    - tanks - more than 100,
    - SAM type s-300 - more than 30
    - nuclear submarines -4-5,
    - DBK - more than 15,
    - residential 100-apartment buildings 12-13. "End of quotation.
    A list of these figures is given, and found his former colleagues. They live inside the Garden Ring, all in chocolate, asking for contact. Sending to ...
    Look at the newspaper, maybe you say hello to one of them by the hand?
    I appeal to Viktor Barents with a request to duplicate the material here and tell about the fate of the defendants in his material. So as not to appear from now on
    thieves in uniform and figures sucking into the military budget.

    On the topic of defense spending and budget deficits.
    Raise the thieves, and there will be no shortage for our Armed Forces.
    I trust our Supreme Commander-in-Chief - HE WILL RISE!

    Yuri Petrunin, Veteran of the USSR Armed Forces, Polyarny, Gatchina