Military Review

Without the fleet there is no victory either in the air or on land

64
Without the fleet there is no victory either in the air or on landIn our country, December 11 traditionally celebrated the Day of the Establishment of the Flag of St. Andrew, under which almost all of its history - With the exception of the Soviet period - the Russian Navy performs a difficult service. However, this holiday turned out, as they say, “with tears in their eyes” - once again some representatives of the expert community insistently offered to revise in the direction of reducing the state armaments program of Russia in relation to the Navy.


The root cause of such proposals is a rather difficult financial and economic situation, in which many experts have a well-founded assumption that in the current realities of GPV-2020 it becomes vulnerable and even not entirely feasible for the deficit budget of Russia. Simply put - not enough money for all. And since there isn’t enough for everyone - you need to find those at whose expense you can sequestrate defense spending. And here they immediately “remember” about navy.

But why, precisely, at the expense of naval construction programs, individual experts most often suggest reducing domestic military spending? Argument one - supposedly the continental status of Russia. Say, Russia is a land power, and for her the fleet is a luxury that she cannot afford in the conditions of financial, economic and military-political uncertainty.

In particular, back in March last year in the Independent Military Review, the director of the Center for Analysis of Strategies and Technologies Ruslan Pukhov in the article “National Defense: Savings are possible” (see “NVO” No. 8 from 16 – 22 in March 2012) in the light of how once the objective need for some reduction in defense spending indicated: "The most unobvious element of military power in the current Russian conditions is the ocean fleet." In his opinion, the geographical position and military history of Russia also speak in favor of the secondary role of the fleet. Moreover, if at that time he believed that “in the extreme case, one can limit oneself only to groups of naval strategic submarine missile carriers in the North and Kamchatka, and also to ensure the strategic stability of the strategists”, today in his other publications his position on fleet costs has become even tougher .

“The nature of the most likely threat makes it possible and obliges us to raise the question of the expediency of the exorbitant planned expenditures on the fleet,” the expert wrote the other day. - As you know, from 19,5 trillion rubles provided for purchases in the interests of the Ministry of Defense, 4,4 trillion is reserved for naval armament and equipment. Such expenses would be fully justified in conditions of a favorable economic situation and low military-political risks. But with a shortage of resources and in an environment of intensified Salafi Mordor, the implementation of long, expensive and extremely inertial naval programs can be postponed until better times. Moreover, the creation of truly new systems of naval armaments is stalling. The possibility of restricting purchases of naval equipment can be envisaged even with regard to naval nuclear deterrence forces, which are much inferior to the Strategic Missile Forces in terms of combat stability and combat readiness, and the air component in terms of flexibility of use. ”

Well, let's try to sort this out.

RUSSIA - LAND POWER?

The author of this material has repeatedly repeated - no doubt, Russia needs a powerful and mobile army, as well as a modern and sufficient in numbers aviationbut this doesn’t mean at all that the fleet should become a stepson: if I want it, I will give money for it, if I want it, I will not. And with the thesis about the "purely land" nature of the country, it is not so simple - just cast a glance at the map. Russia not only has the largest territory in the world with an area of ​​17 million 98,2 thousand square meters. km, but also with huge sea borders - with a length of more than 37 thousand km (despite the fact that the length of land borders is less than 21 thousand km), and even located from all over the world. Plus, do not forget about the area of ​​territorial waters and the exclusive economic zone, as well as the “fertile” shelf.

It is necessary to take into account the fact that the sea borders from the north and east are exits to the Arctic and Pacific Oceans, which in the 21st century will be the scene of major events in world politics and economics, and with the Arctic region the Russian military and political leadership sense connects the prosperous future of Russia. In particular, on December held 10 this year. The expanded board of the Russian Ministry of Defense, Russian President Vladimir Putin instructed the leadership of the ministry in the coming year "to pay special attention to the deployment of infrastructure and military units in the Arctic direction." As the head of state stressed, “Russia is increasingly developing this promising region, is returning to it and should have all the levers here to protect its security and national interests.” In the current year, we recall, the military base on the New Siberian Islands resumed its activities, and the restoration of the Arctic airfields of Temp, Tiksi, Naryan-Mar, Alykel, Anadyr, Rogachevo and Nagurskaya was launched. Other work was carried out in the Russian Arctic.

The world's oceans occupy three quarters of the planet’s surface, which makes it possible to use it as an important transport corridor, allowing for a very reasonable price to transfer cargo from one part of the world to another. And often sea transport is the only way to transport certain goods. In fact, you will not carry grain from the south of Russia overseas on airplanes. This is not the grain will be, and gold. Our country has already left once - after the collapse of the USSR - from the oceans, which immediately affected its economic development. For example, the turnover of domestic sea transport in 1992 – 2005 decreased from 405 billion ton-kilometers to 60, and only in 2010 did it again exceed the milestone of 100 billion.

In recent years, Russia is returning to the oceans, both politically and economically. Thus, according to the UN Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD), as of 1 in January of 2012, Russia occupied the 17 position in the ranking of countries in terms of the total deadweight of merchant ships, 1787, in 20 deadweight, 368 207 t. The global shipping market was only 1,46% with such data, but we were already ahead of the UK, Holland and France in this indicator. However, even India (1,53%) and Turkey (1,69%) were a little inferior, not to mention China (8,91%), Germany (9,03%), Japan (15,64%) and Greece (16,1%).

Finally, we should not forget about the extraction of marine biological resources. For example, according to the forecast of the President of the All-Russian Association of Fisheries Enterprises, Entrepreneurs and Exporters (VARPE) Alexander Fomin, according to the 2013 results, the total catch of Russian fishermen may exceed 4,3 million tons, which will be the best result of the industry over the last 15 years.

So it turns out that Russia is not such a land one and has very significant interests at sea that are important for its continued existence. But these interests, as well as all of the above and many other achievements in the field of Russia's maritime activities, must be protected. And without a modern ocean navy to do it is simply unthinkable. Is that hire an armada of elves. On the other hand, this does not mean that we should start atomic aircraft carriers or universal landing ships like some “hotheads” right now to start “bake like pies”. Everything must be approached systematically and wisely.

At the same time, it is necessary to take into account the important fact that, thanks to the rapid development of naval weapons and equipment, one of the most important, perhaps the most important qualities of a modern navy is its ability to solve equally diverse tasks in a practically equally effective way. Therefore, the main task today is to provide the Russian Navy with this very versatility, which can only be done by creating a balanced fleet. And for this, it will be necessary to implement long-term and “inertial” programs of naval construction, since the cycle of creation and launching of a main-class warship is probably the longest among all types of weapons and military equipment, except strategic ones.

MARINE COMPONENT OF NUCLEAR RESTRUCTURING FORCES

“I will note the good organization of command and staff exercises for the use of strategic nuclear forces,” Vladimir Putin stressed at the expanded board of the Russian Defense Ministry. - In the modern history of Russia, it was the second time. Land, sea and air complexes successfully launched missiles, confirmed the reliability of Russia's nuclear shield. "

However, the high reliability of this shield in our case can be fully ensured only with proper maintenance of all three of its components - ground, sea and air - in combat readiness. And the first two components - let the pilots not be offended by this statement - are decisive. At the same time, neither land nor sea SNFs can be transferred to the “second category”, concentrating on another component, since they harmoniously complement each other.

Yes, the creation and maintenance of strategic submarine missile-carriers and their missile systems in combat readiness is a much more complex and multifaceted task than the same actions with respect to the ground component of the strategic nuclear forces. But in response, naval "strategists" give the nuclear shield of Russia such qualities as high secrecy and combat stability (go and look for an underwater bomber in the dark depths of the World Ocean or even under the powerful ice cap of the Arctic, and then destroy it in the "right time" : you touch it earlier - and you yourself will start a nuclear war), as well as the ability to guarantee retaliation of retaliation, which is the main deterrent for the likely aggressor.

You think why London and Paris relied on nuclear submarines on nuclear-powered submarine missile strategists, and not on land-based ICBMs and strategic bombers, although the last two options would be much simpler in terms of technology and would be cheaper for these countries (in France however, the air component of operational-strategic / strategic importance remains). Not because the ground and air components of their main ally - the United States. The main thing here is the high combat stability and secrecy of the actions of underwater "strategists". In addition, Russian missile carriers have another advantage - with “flat” missile firing, the possibility of overcoming the enemy’s missile defense system by them is greatly increased, and the flight time is reduced. This is a kind of nuclear pistol at the head of the aggressor, slightly jerked - and "Alles Kaput."

Yes, the naval component of the strategic nuclear forces has its drawbacks: the high vulnerability of submarine rocket carriers in the basing points and the rather low reliability of bringing to them orders of centralized command and control in a submerged position. However, these shortcomings are compensated by the presence of a powerful ground-based component of the SNF, which, on the contrary, has as its main advantages high readiness for an almost immediate missile launch and the ability of the command and control system to control the missile weapons directly from the center of the General Staff of the Armed Forces. But the ground component, in turn, also has a drawback: due to the previously known locations of mining and home-based areas and combat patrols of mobile launchers, as well as due to the significantly increased satellite reconnaissance capabilities of identifying mobile poplars along the route (Yarses) These means are too vulnerable in the event that the adversary is the first to use precision and nuclear weapons. Therefore, it is only in the balance between the sea and land components that the Russian strategic nuclear forces can guarantee their main task - strategic deterrence of any aggressor.

As for the “flexibility” of the air component of the SNF, firstly, with the advent of powerful non-nuclear high-precision weapons capable of using the strategic range, and the presence of numerous and diverse types of tactical nuclear weapons in Russia, the strategic bombers with cruise missiles in the nuclear the gear was largely leveled; and secondly, it is useful to recall that only recently the Tu-160 aircraft — the main strike fist of the SNF air component — have begun to modernize in order to enable them to use high-precision non-nuclear aircraft equipment (the same ABM and CAB).

In confirmation of the importance of the NSNS for ensuring the national security of Russia, one can cite the words of the head of state Vladimir Putin, said at the meeting on the development of the Russian Navy, held on 27 this November. in Sochi: “I think it’s not necessary to talk a lot about how important the maritime unit is for us in the triad of nuclear strategic deterrence. Our Armed Forces, including the forces of nuclear strategic deterrence, must be balanced, so we intend and will continue to give appropriate attention to the Navy in general and its strategic part in particular. "

The Supreme Commander understands the importance of the naval component of the SNF and intends to develop it, but some people do not understand it. It’s another thing that, thanks to the actions of certain senior managers and individual enterprises, the Russian NNSF faced a dangerous situation, when the strategic armament carrier, the submarine carrier, exists, and not one, but its main weapon, the missiles, no! It’s good that “now we don’t have 37 year”, otherwise it would be possible to find out on quite legitimate reasons - who, how and why brought the naval part of Russia's nuclear triad to such a state.

As a result, today we really faced the problem that by the year 2020 it might not be possible to put into operation all eight strategic rocket carriers of the 955 “Borey” family, while the missile carriers of the 667BDR project will inevitably be written off and only six 667BDRM ships will remain in stock (and then maybe not all). Plus, as a result of the degradation and collapse of the general-purpose naval forces and naval aviation, the combat stability of underwater "strategists" has been reduced to a certain extent.

These are the problems that need to be discussed today, and not that the NSNF is inferior to its “land” and “air” colleagues. There is a direct feeling that those who created naval SNFs in the United States and the Soviet Union, not to mention Britain and France, and now China, were entirely short-sighted experts and voluntarily “threw” a lot of money into these programs.

EXTENDED FEAR BEFORE THE MORDOR

Now about the "hordes of Mordor". Yes, these "hordes" are able to terrify anyone. However, the desire to reconcile the need to counter extremist detachments, which after Syria should probably be redirected by their "sponsors" against Russia, with the implementation of the program to create a modern ocean fleet in the country, is not entirely clear.

The Navy is an instrument of the state, allowing it to protect both its interests at sea and in the coastal zone, and to effectively solve strategic problems. Is it possible that the “smoke of Mordor” so obscures someone’s eyes that they no longer understand this?

No, the fleet, of course, can take part in the fight against the “hordes of Mordor”. For example, strike with the use of sea-based cruise and ballistic missiles in conventional or even nuclear equipment, both against the “hordes” that created a serious threat to the national security of Russia, and also to “Mordor” itself. However, experience has shown that militant units will not declare war and then rush through the Russian border in a mob, but prefer to penetrate it secretly, then going over to sabotage (“partisan”) activity. Fighting such an enemy is not the task of the fleet. And not the task of the army, if we speak frankly. This is primarily the task of the security and law enforcement agencies. In our case, these are the Ministry of Internal Affairs and the FSB (including border guards), as well as the FMS and the Emergencies Ministry in terms of “trapping” such “infiltrates” and eliminating the consequences of their activities.

Expenses here go under the article "National Security and Law Enforcement." And the costs are considerable: 2014 is planned to be allocated for 1458,7 billion rubles, 2015 is 1472,2 billion rubles, 2016 is 1487,3 billion rubles. Including the financing of the Internal Troops, whose tasks are precisely the struggle with the militants, will go accordingly 120,3; 121,2 and 120 billion rubles. Moreover, the costs of the article "National Defense" in the same period will be, respectively, 1024,7 billion rubles., 1094,7 billion rubles. and 1087,2 billion rubles., And actually on the Armed Forces - 867,4; 908,1 and 942,5 billion rubles. respectively.

As you can see, the activities of those who must, among other things, fight against the “hordes of Mordor” are paid very well, and the purchase of weapons, military and special equipment, as well as other purchases of these security agencies for the period up to 2020, is provided for around 1,7 trillion rubles. Well, if that - the army and navy podsobyat. They will deliver rocket-bombing blows to the “sponsor safes” or “trample down with boots” these “banks”. However, if you do not have a fleet, then even delivering a powerful missile-bombing attack to objects distant from your own territory will be a very problematic task. Especially if the aircraft will need to fly in the airspace of other countries - you fly without permission, you will be shot down. What can we say about the "boot kicks", then you just will not get lost.

During the First World War, a propaganda poster was popular in the USA. A sailor with a soldier sitting on his shoulder and a slogan “Fleet will transfer them” (in the sense of transferring soldiers across the ocean) (in the sense of transferring soldiers across the ocean), were popular on the poster. Simple and rude, but with taste and quite understandable for the average person on the poster was shown the important role of the US Navy in the "business of punishment" of the enemy, hiding from Uncle Sam overseas. After all, it is more effective to destroy the hornet's nest at once, in one fell swoop, and not to stand, powerlessly brushing aside the "fighters" departing from it.

PIRATES OF THE XXI CENTURY

"For a more effective fight against international terrorism and the performance of individual tasks outside the Russian Federation, Special Operations Forces are being created," Russian President Vladimir Putin said at an expanded board of the Russian Defense Ministry. And how, interestingly, our experts think of the combat use of "on a wide range of issues" of such Special Operations Forces outside Russia without a powerful ocean fleet capable of delivering them to the place of operation and provide effective support? After all, it is necessary to act not only near the borders of Russia, which can be reached by land or, in some cases, by plane. It may also be necessary to use it as a “road” and a base station for the sea or ocean, or even the water column.

One of the options is the need to free the ship captured by pirates or terrorists under the Russian flag. In particular, last year, the commander-in-chief of the Russian Navy, Viktor Chirkov, stated that during the participation of Russian warships in the operation in the Gulf of Aden and off the coast of Somalia, not a single seizure of ships that accompanied Russian naval ships was allowed, but a common improving the situation in the region. “Undoubtedly, the anti-piracy actions of our fleet and the ships of other countries in this area allowed us to improve the situation,” noted Vice-Admiral Viktor Chirkov then. “This is eloquently shown by the fact that the number of successful pirate attacks to date has remained at the level of 2008 of the year, when the activity of pirates was much less than the one we are seeing at the moment.”

The statement is not unfounded. During 2011, the Somali pirates managed to seize 28 civilian ships, whereas in 2010, they were around 50. According to the Singapore International Maritime Bureau, "the decline was due to the preemptive strikes of warships, more efficient ship management and the presence of armed security personnel on board, which played a deterrent effect." By the way, that year, Russian sailors in the Gulf of Aden and Horn of Africa secured 32 escorts for convoys consisting of 169 ships (under the flag of 27 states), and on 62 of them were citizens of the Russian Federation (total 448 Russians), and for the first half of 2012 years, warships of the Pacific Fleet of the Russian Navy escorted 14 caravans that included 92 ships flying the flag of 27 countries, including 3 ships flying the Russian flag and 36 ships with Russian citizens on board. The safety of 237 Russian citizens was ensured and an attempt to seize one vessel was prevented. The case with the liberation of the tanker “Moscow University” of the company “Novoship” in May, which was captured by pirates and released two years later by the marines operating from BPC “Marshal Shaposhnikov” (2010 pirate was killed, 1 taken in captivity).

At the same time, the fight against piracy is not a whim of Moscow and our admirals, as it may seem to the average man. First, Russia, as mentioned above, is gradually reviving its commercial fleet, and secondly, the title of permanent member of the UN Security Council obliges Russia to take an active part in such large operations under the flag of an international organization as the fight against pirates.

Can the army and the air force solve this problem? The question is purely rhetorical.

SUPPORT FACTOR

“Russia consistently stands for solving all international and regional problems by exclusively peaceful, diplomatic means. But I must say bluntly that the factor of military deterrence still plays a very significant role, ”said Russian President Vladimir Putin at the board of the Russian Defense Ministry already mentioned.

The determining factor here is the high value of the military deterrence factor. However, if your opponent is not at home, but somewhere overseas or ocean, and even more so if the conflict with him arose due to the influence on some third country, powerful RVSN, the army and the Air Force will not be able to fully play a deterrent role. Illustrative examples are Libya and Syria.

It is by no means possible to use nuclear weapons in every case of a military conflict, especially if it is not in your territory. Air power can be seriously limited by the enemy’s air defense forces and means, and aviation cannot capture or hold any territory on its own (General Douet’s doctrine has very serious flaws - confirmed by practice). Well, with the infantry tanks just won't get it. Sometimes you can send blue berets to the case, but if the enemy has strong air defense, the task will turn into an ordinary slaughter.

It is quite another thing if you have a fleet capable of becoming the cement that can solder an army, aircraft and paratroopers with marines into a single powerful fist, as well as having the opportunity to provide substantial assistance with their firing capabilities - sea-based cruise missiles and deck aircraft . In the end, whatever one may say, and without the Russian fleet — if, of course, it wants to remain a great world power, it cannot be done. Remember the words of Peter the Great? "Every Potentate, who has a single land army, has one hand, and who has a fleet, has both hands."

Peter I can be blamed in many ways. In excessive harshness and even cruelty in the implementation of his plans, in excessive admiration for the West and in many other ways. But not only in the absence of the intelligence and talent of the commander, and certainly not in the absence of the ability of a strategic vision of the position of the Russian State on the world chessboard. And what are we, the descendants of Peter the Great, going to continue to make Russia a “one-armed invalid”, without a modern ocean fleet, lulling ourselves with a lack of funds, an unfavorable conjuncture in the oil products market, or something else? The richest country in the world and suddenly - no money! Sounds like a bad joke. Moreover, the military shipbuilding program can become a locomotive for civil shipbuilding. However, the budget of the state enterprise “Shipbuilding Development for 2013 – 2030” in 2014 – 2016 provides for the allocation of 52,8 billion rubles, while a comparable amount - 58,2 billion rubles. - according to SE “Development of the aviation industry for 2013 – 2025 years” is allocated only in 2014 year, and for 2014 – 2016 years its budget is 174 billion rubles.

It is noteworthy that on the Day of St. Andrew’s flag in St. Petersburg, the Military Council of the Russian Navy began to work, which traditionally summarizes the military training of the Navy in the outgoing year and sets tasks for the next year, and also discusses the most important issues of the fleet and naval construction. Opening the meeting of the Council, Admiral Viktor Chirkov, Commander-in-Chief of the Russian Navy, read the words of the famous Russian statesman Pyotr Stolypin: “Russia needs a fleet that at any given moment could fight with the fleet that is at the level of the latest scientific requirements. If this does not happen, if the fleet of Russia is different, then it will only be harmful, since it will inevitably become the prey of the attackers. ”

Offering Russian sailors to once again suffer with the renewal of the naval personnel and weapons, postponing for too uncertain “later” the implementation of too “expensive and extremely inertial” programs, the authors of such proposals just contribute to the emergence of “another” fleet, which, according to Stolypin, “will only harmful "and" will inevitably become prey to attackers. " So, under the specious pretext of saving money and redistributing them in the direction of fighting the “hordes of Mordor”, the Russian fleet is actually preparing a new Tsushima in advance.

In my opinion, one was quite enough for “working on the mistakes”, but the Russian military-political leadership managed to allow the second Tsushima: in the 1990-ies a ruthless blow was struck on the domestic fleet - warships and auxiliary vessels, many of which did not serve and half of their appointed time, and some even with not fully dismantled weapons and equipment, were sold for pennies for scrap metal to domestic and foreign firms. The Russian fleet, whose headquarters under the far-fetched pretext of the only one "evicted" from Belokamennaya, will not survive the third Tsushima.
Author:
Originator:
http://nvo.ng.ru/
64 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Very old
    Very old 22 December 2013 07: 47
    +19
    EBN, the "young reformers" were preparing not only the second Tsushima ...
    Their efforts led to the wild lag of the whole army
    And again and again, Russia is catching up
    And we are told: and do not dream of having an aircraft carrier fleet
    1. Roman 1977
      Roman 1977 22 December 2013 08: 22
      +37
      Well, yes, like this ...

      or so ...
      1. A.YARY
        A.YARY 22 December 2013 09: 06
        +28
        Quote-
        The richest country in the world and suddenly - no money! Sounds like a bad joke.

        TO NATIONALIZE ALL NATURAL WEALTHS and this "anecdote" will end. Shooting EVERYONE who is involved in this will end another anecdote! angry
        1. Far East
          Far East 22 December 2013 11: 13
          +7
          Quote: A.YARY
          NATIONALIZE ALL NATURAL RICHES

          good you said it right! only here PU. answered the press conference to the correspondent NEVER touch them. hi
      2. knn54
        knn54 22 December 2013 13: 20
        +8
        Peter I: “There can be no Russian fleet!”
        It is bad that there is no marine doctrine - there is no strategy, there are no clear plans for what exactly we want and what is needed for this. Sectoral research institutes have disappeared, specialists from headquarters have been changed to “effective managers” who are looking to the West - it would be nice for us to have the same. But still there is a feeling that the ice has broken.
        “You think why London and Paris made a bet in the strategic nuclear forces on nuclear submarine strategic missile carriers, and not on land-based ICBMs and strategic bombers ...”
        JUST behind the Yankees with their fleet.
        About the submarine. Today, they are indispensable in the setting of mines, that is, to carry out a blockade.
        Had there been a powerful fleet in the USSR in the 60s and early 70s, Chile and Indonesia would not have fallen from our hands. The appearance of the squadron off the coast of Syria cooled the Western hawks.
        The same Britain - possessing small ground forces EFFECTIVELY controlled half the world at the expense of the fleet.
        Without the GREAT Fleet, there is no GREAT power.
        PS A Soviet submarine pops up. The captain is building personnel on the deck. "Who threw a wet rag on the rocket launcher?" Shouts the angry captain. “Guilty, I threw it,” one sailor says, looking downcast. “He is to blame, you see,” the captain grumbles, “and now Belgium is gone!”
        1. Airman
          Airman 22 December 2013 18: 07
          0
          Quote: knn54
          Peter I: “There can be no Russian fleet!”
          It’s bad that there is no marine doctrine - there is no strategy, there are no clear plans for what exactly we want and what is needed for this ..

          Not only is there no naval doctrine, we have NO MILITARY DOCTRINE, there are no plans for the development of the country and the economy. There are only plans to RIP the country in the form of northern, southern and eastern streams in the form of pumping resources and storing money over the hill. And you are "aircraft carriers", the fleet, if they need a fleet, it is only to fight for the northern shelf.
        2. starshina78
          starshina78 22 December 2013 19: 07
          +3
          Anyone who says that Russia does not need the Fleet is either, or a provocateur! Russia is washed by 12 seas - the Black, Baltic, Azov, Kara, White, Barents, Laptev, East Siberian, Chukchi, Bering, Okhotsk and Japanese seas, has direct access to the Pacific Ocean (outlet from Avacha Bay of Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky), Caspian sea, the length of the sea borders -38807,5 km, sea borders with the USA and Japan. And this is not a reason for Russia to have a Navy? Only for the protection of the water area (OVR) how many ships are needed - minesweepers, IPC, TFR, and to protect the country on distant approaches from the landing of amphibious assault and intercept nuclear submarines with nuclear missiles - BOD, cruisers, multipurpose boats, and most importantly - nuclear submarines missiles? We need a Fleet! Big ocean so that we can defend the Motherland from the foe. And we need one, as the USSR naval power specialist, captain of the first rank of the US Navy, Harry Alendorfer, once mournfully thought: “Whenever you enter a foreign port and cannot immediately see the state flags on the masts of the ships standing there, choose from they are the most beautiful, clean and well-groomed. In nine cases out of ten you will not be mistaken - these will be Russian ships! "We must achieve this! So that our ships sail again in all corners of the world's oceans! So that those who have the "St. Andrew's Flag" flaunt on their shoulders, like we did, who have our "sickle naval" on their shoulders with the inscription "I will not forget the Fleet!", Could say that: "I went to the forties!" or "To the Indian for the battle!"
          1. timer
            timer 22 December 2013 19: 45
            +4
            And yet, to all the saboteurs, the guardians of the alleged savings from the destruction of the army and navy, the liberals and the shit, I will answer-FOR ALL ANSWER FULL, NITS !! And where to get the money, I have some simple recipes: a) reduce officials in 2 times and deprive them of all privileges; b) introduce articles on the death penalty (life imprisonment) in the criminal code with full confiscation of property with compensation for damage to sabotage, misappropriation, tax evasion, withdrawal of profit abroad; c) return, with the help of state security, stolen and withdrawn from the country den. funds at all costs. Then money can be quickly found not only for the army and navy, but for the revival of the new economy and industry. enterprises.
      3. timer
        timer 22 December 2013 19: 35
        +1
        To these "soldiers of the Reich" I will answer, their fate is the grave! And yet, to all saboteurs, guardians of allegedly saving by destroying the army and navy, liberals and shitcrats, I will answer-ANSWER FOR EVERYTHING IN FULL, NIT !! I have a few simple recipes: a) to cut officials by half and deprive them of all privileges; b) introduce into the Criminal Code articles on the death penalty (life-long hard labor) with complete confiscation of property with compensation for damage for sabotage, thief, tax evasion, withdrawal of profits abroad; c) return, with the help of state security, money stolen and taken out of the country. funds at any cost. Then money will quickly be found not only for the army and navy, but for the revival of the new economy and industry. enterprises.
    2. The comment was deleted.
    3. Kibalchish
      Kibalchish 22 December 2013 08: 42
      .
      Aircraft carriers can only afford
      1) a rich country (the population in Russia is poor, what kind of aircraft carriers are there)
      2) island power (Japan, Britain)
      3) is a country with extensive maritime communications, the economy of which is linked to maritime supplies (USA, China).

      Russia does not fit one point. In addition, ships are heated for two times by aircraft. It is better to have a network of coastal airfields, and forget about ocean dreams forever.
      1. Very old
        Very old 22 December 2013 09: 16
        +5
        In your opinion, and "Adm.Kuznetsov" - for cancellation, for scrap?
        1. Kibalchish
          Kibalchish 22 December 2013 09: 52
          .
          Why immediately scrapping? Let it first work out a resource, since it’s been built. You forget that a ship of this class was needed under the naval doctrine of the USSR, but not the Russian Federation.
          1. Very old
            Very old 22 December 2013 11: 36
            +7
            Did not forget.
            But I do not want to understand.
            Long. Expensive. Painfully waiting. But we will wait and hope.
          2. AVV
            AVV 22 December 2013 12: 56
            +5
            It will be possible to return to the aircraft carriers when the rest of the fleet will be re-equipped, modernized, brought to the optimal level in quantitative terms, then it will be possible to consider such expensive programs as the construction of the aircraft carrier, and now at least upgrade admin Kuznetsova !!!
      2. The comment was deleted.
      3. Roman 1977
        Roman 1977 22 December 2013 09: 34
        +13
        Well, not everything is as bad as some of our "sworn friends" would like:
        Now CFL will be in the foreseeable future in chocolate and will be updated (Dagestan + Tatarstan + 4 IAC (one of the IRAs of project 1241 was recently remade) + 5 IRAs 21631 with UKSK + Serny + Dugongi + auxiliary fleet, everything is new, and to this 5 IRAs ( 2 projects 1241, and one R-32 was delivered to the fleet in 2000 and is armed with Mosquito, 3 projects 206); 5 AKA (4 projects 1204, 1 project 1400M), 7 minesweepers. This year KFL handed over Project 21980 PrDKA "Grachonok" and DKA pr. 11770 "Serna." If everything goes well, then by the end of the year 2 more MRKs of project 21631 will be handed over ("Uglich" and "Grad Sviyazhsk" and 2 more "Serna", which are undergoing factory tests. that the already mentioned RCA R-32 will be transferred from the CFL to the BF to the 36th brigade of missile boats.
        http://eagle-rost.livejournal.com/100391.html

        The Black Sea Fleet will significantly upgrade to the 17 year, and in general the situation with the oldest old fleet of the country will be tolerable.
        The Baltic Fleet is already quite good - TFR the Wise and Undaunted are keeping the ocean watch, the core of corvettes 20380 (already 3, and soon 4) Baltic and began to walk across Europe. The situation is already bearable. This year, the fleet received a project 20380 corvette "Boyky", perhaps they will have time to deliver "Stoyky" by the end of the year, which has already gone to sea for testing.
        Northern Fleet - the same 22350, 20385 and so on are being built there, and this is the strongest fleet today, moreover, the age is quite small, the same Shepherd of 1999, Kulakov generally count 2010, because there the cars were changed. Yes, plus the submarine submarine "St. Petersburg" of project 677, transferred from the Baltic Fleet for testing.
        All that remains is the Pacific Fleet with the Varyag and 4 BODs that do not leave the ocean, and the Bystry, which is dangerous to run far. And if other fleets are actively updating or planning to update, then only corvettes are being built for the Pacific Fleet (we will take the UDC outside the brackets for now), and those with a creak at the local shipyard. True, the Pacific Fleet received 2 Project 21980 Grachonok missiles this year, which, however, does not please much.
        So, what we have at the exit: 1 corvette, 3 PrDKA, 1 submarine were handed over to the fleet, 1 diesel-electric submarine of project 877 "Kaluga" was repaired, Expected by the end of the year: 1 SSBN of project 955 "Borey" - "Alexander Nevsky" for Pacific Fleet fleet acceptance must be signed today, 2 MRK project 21631, 2 DKA project 11770 "Serna" (all for KFl), possibly 1 MPLATRK project 855 "Ash" - "Severodvinsk" for the Northern Fleet, 1 corvette of project 20380 for the BF, 1 DKA "Denis Davydov "project 21820" Dugong ".
        Next year, 1 Project 955 SSBN Borey - Vladimir Monomakh for the Pacific Fleet, 1 UDC Mistral - Vladivostok for the Pacific Fleet (possibly) are expected; 3 diesel-electric submarines of project 636.3 for the Black Sea Fleet (the first of them "Novorossiysk" has already been launched); 1 frigate of project 22350-long-suffering "Gorshkov" for the Northern Fleet, 1 frigate of project 22350 "Admiral Kasatonov", for the Black Sea Fleet (possibly); 3 frigates of project 11356 for the Black Sea Fleet (possibly); 1 corvette of project 20380 "Perfect" for the Pacific Fleet (possibly); 1 BDK project 11711, another "sufferer" "Ivan Gren" (possibly); 3 MRK project 21631 for KFl; 1 BTShch project 12700 "Alexandrite"; 1 Project 21980 Grachonok project for the Pacific Fleet; 3 PCs (2 projects 12150A "Mongoose" and 1 project 03160 "Raptor").
        Well, most importantly, the whole year the fleet did not stand at the pier, it actively went to sea. Oin "Syrian Express" is worth it. And even now, two of our most powerful ships are at sea, Kuzya and Peter the Great, not counting the Project 1164 Varyag RRC, 3 Project 1155 BODs and 7 BDKs, and we wish them seven feet under the keel! soldier
        1. S_mirnov
          S_mirnov 22 December 2013 10: 12
          +13
          "But why, exactly at the expense of naval development programs, do some experts most often suggest reducing domestic military spending?"
          I think the question is fundamentally wrong !!!
          It is not necessary to reduce military spending, but the number of thievish officials, oligarchs and change the government is not able to effectively manage the economy of our country. Stop the export of capital from the country, making the ruble non-convertible! And then there will be enough money for the fleet and will still remain !!!
          And we, instead of extinguishing the thieves, we scratch our turnips, what else could we save on the army, navy or state employees. And if you think about it, then you could raise the fleet with money tucked into the Olympiad !!!
          1. doctor.75
            doctor.75 22 December 2013 13: 48
            +5
            Khodorkovsky, for example, could not be released for free. I would donate a little bit to the tsar and the fatherland, and then to freedom with a clear conscience.) Yes, to hell with him, him and Khodorkovsky! Personally, I’m sure that if you shake such wallets as Chubais and others like him (moreover, normally shake it as an adult, according to the principle: give 3/4 give, not with a salary, tea profits), you can use money for the fleet, and still what to collect. BUT....
            Who will be guarding such money ?! Honestly!? Again, after all, all sorts of Serdyukovs will be snared with Serdyuchki, etc., etc., you never know. And GDP does not want to become king wassat (maybe even from an autocrat, THESE would be careful to drag THESE from their pockets?), and in general said that they should not be touched for some reason ... Is it really a raven-raven ???!
            And you could touch angry .Expropriation of the expropriators, damn it!
            1. ivshubarin
              ivshubarin 22 December 2013 13: 58
              +1
              Hodora was shaking well, and there were others
            2. The comment was deleted.
            3. Very old
              Very old 22 December 2013 18: 54
              0
              doctor.75
              How to shake? - tell me
              The tax was not introduced for us - 13% "for everything-about everything" regardless of the "navar", and even brag about it.
              In the stinky West, business pays a progressive tax, and does not transfer it to a foreign country and to offshore companies.
              1. ivshubarin
                ivshubarin 22 December 2013 19: 10
                0
                Grandmas are hiding in offshore all over the world, and Putin promised to shake one-time tax compensation for illegal privatization in the 90s for oligarchs, but for some reason he forgot
              2. The comment was deleted.
        2. alone
          alone 22 December 2013 10: 24
          +3
          All this is good. But there is one significant but.
          Those that still sail old ships (with the exception of a few ships). Replacing the engine is of course very good, but do not forget about the wear of the hull. Ships in the average 25-30 years. You probably know how sea and ocean water acts on metal.
          Strengthening CFL is of course the business of Russia. But to strengthen the flotilla where there are no competitors and the danger is generally unclear. Who is going to spoil through the Caspian against Russia?
          Today, both the Baltic Fleet, the Black Sea Fleet, and the Pacific Fleet lag behind their neighbors many times. According to admirals
          only the Turks have a five-fold superiority over the Black Sea Fleet, not to mention the other fleets of this basin. and after all, almost all the countries of the Black Sea basin are NATO members.
          And the situation on the BF is depressing. The only BF submarine is opposed by 16 submarine units. Not counting surface ships. But the Pacific Fleet generally lagged not only from China, but also from the South Caucasus and Japan.
          only the Federation Council has superiority over its neighbors.

          Quote: Novel 1977
          Oin "Syrian Express" is worth it.


          Yes, the Syrian express was very successful. But do not forget that the express was successful thanks to the BDK, which delivered goods continuously to Syria. But the BDK can be assigned to a military unit conditionally. Without a convoy, the BDK is a very convenient target.

          but the fact that the Fleet needs to be strengthened and updated in this you are right. soldier
          1. The comment was deleted.
          2. Roman 1977
            Roman 1977 22 December 2013 11: 21
            +4
            Dear Omar, I will not reveal a terrible secret if I say that back in Soviet times, the Caspian Flotilla was a reserve for the Black Sea Fleet and is now. Considering the terms of the agreement between Yanukovych and Medvedev, that Russia has the right to replace ships in Sevastopol only with the consent of Ukraine, and the Novorossiysk base is still under construction (you probably remember the incident with "Dagestan" in the Novorossiysk bay, due to which the adoption was delayed for almost six months ship), then the strengthening of the Caspian Flotilla is quite logical, since the ships are provided with bases and MTO.
            As for the Black Sea, there is not so bad: firstly, the main forces of the Turkish fleet are in the Mediterranean, having Greece as the main likely enemy;
            secondly, apart from the Turkish, no other navy in the Black Sea can compete with the Black Sea Fleet. Judge for yourself: Romania is a NATO member: submarine, no, the only submarine of project 877, supplied by the USSR, is in a sludge; the flagship of the fleet, the destroyer Marasesti, built during the reign of Ceausescu from missile armament, has only 8 P-20 anti-ship missiles, there is no air defense system; 2 British "Broadswords", transferred within the framework of NATO, have neither air defense systems nor anti-ship missiles. Bulgaria-NATO member-submarine no; the basis of the fleet 2 former Belgian frigates "Willingen" of the 70s also transferred under the NATO program and 1 Soviet project 1159; Ukraine-PL "Zaporozhye", I will keep silent about its merits, so as not to offend the Ukrainian comrades; former Soviet PSKR of project 1135.1 and 3 MPK of project 1124M without anti-ship missiles, 1 MRK of project 1241 and MPK of project 1241.2, and given the chaos that is happening in Ukraine, it is unlikely to be strengthened in the near future; There is no Georgia-Naval Forces at all, several SKA not being killed do not count. In the Baltic, taking into account the small length of the coastline left by the Russian Federation and due to the limited theater of operations itself, a large fleet is not needed: personally, I think that finding the "Persistent" and SKR project 11540 is superfluous, 20380 is quite enough, especially since they tried to translate "Yaroslav the Wise" on the Black Sea Fleet, however, Ukraine sharply opposed, and in Novorossiysk there are no conditions for its basing. Pacific Ocean, here I completely agree with you: we have practically nothing to resist the rapidly growing fleets of China, Japan, South Koei, and unfortunately, practically nothing is planned there, except for SSBNs of Project 955 and Mistrals, 2 corvettes of Project 20380 are being built by turtle pace, disrupting the state order.
            Returning to the topic of the previous post "Strict" on demagnetization
            1. alone
              alone 22 December 2013 11: 41
              +6
              Roman, but do not forget about the Navy's NATO grouping, which is located in the operational vicinity of the Black Sea. These are forces that are in the Mediterranean. These are quite large forces.
              To be honest, building an Aircraft Carrier does not mean anything. To secure an Aircraft Carrier, you need at least 20-30 more support ships. And this takes decades. With all due respect to Russia as a neighbor, and a country with which I had to live together for at least 200 years, this is beyond the reach of Russia in the current state. Too much has been crushed in 20 years to take and fix everything now for some 4-5 years old. Now every new surface ship is more necessary than speculation and debate about an aircraft carrier. Sincerely, Omar!hi
              1. Roman 1977
                Roman 1977 22 December 2013 12: 08
                +9
                Dear Omar, I cannot disagree with you about the aircraft carrier. And, unfortunately, we cannot do it yet. For comparison, the same Mistral was laid down on February 1, 2012, on October 15 this year, it was launched and next year it is expected to be transferred to our Navy; our project 20380 corvette has been under construction for 7 years, and the project 22350 frigate, laid down in 2006, cannot be handed over to the fleet. Correctly you say, too much has been destroyed in 20 years, but it is necessary to strive for aircraft carriers. There is even Angola and that for some reason buys a second-hand Spanish "Prince of Asturias".
                http://bmpd.livejournal.com/680258.html

                But I very much hope that over time we will have such handsome men.

                With mutual respect! hi
                1. Arberes
                  Arberes 22 December 2013 14: 00
                  +5
                  Quote: Novel 1977
                  but it is necessary to strive for aircraft carriers. There is even Angola and that for some reason buys a second-hand Spanish "Prince of Asturias".

                  Necessarily necessary and no one says that right now take it out and put it down. Gradually, taking into account all the realities of our economy and the development of the scientific and technical base and potential. If we want to be a powerful and developed power, we must think about the future and move forward!
                  But I very much hope that over time we will have similar beauties Roman 1977
                  I also want everything to be so! drinks
                2. Setrac
                  Setrac 22 December 2013 17: 01
                  0
                  Quote: Novel 1977
                  But I very much hope that over time we will have such handsome men.

                  This is a photoshop, who has these beauties?
                  1. Arberes
                    Arberes 22 December 2013 18: 27
                    +1
                    Quote: Setrac
                    This is a photoshop, who has these beauties?

                    Well, really, and it is impossible to dream? Judging by the two isles (cuttings), is this the English "Queen Elizabeth" under construction?
                    1. The comment was deleted.
                    2. Roman 1977
                      Roman 1977 22 December 2013 19: 42
                      +3
                      No, this is a mock-up of a Russian aircraft carrier project, the name is currently unknown, developed by the FSUE "Krylov State Scientific Center", also known as "TsNII im. acad. AN Krylov ".
                      The "premiere" took place on July 4 this year at the International Maritime Defense Show (IMDS-13) at a private screening to the Commander-in-Chief of the Russian Navy Viktor Chirkov and Deputy Defense Minister Yuri Borisov.
                      Description:
                      Type - heavy strike aircraft carrier.
                      Scheme - CATOBAR.
                      Displacement - approx. 80 KT
                      The power plant is non-nuclear.
                      Travel speed - at least 30 nodes.
                      Armament - 4 air defense systems of the "Polyment-Redut" type - 4 x 2 x 8 VPU
                      Cost Planned:
                      programs - approx. 400 billion rubles
                      ship construction - approx. 80 billion rubles i.e. OK. $ 2,4 billion. For comparison, the cost of building ships of the "Nimitz" type is approx. $ 4.5-5 billion (the most expensive, the last - CVN-77 "George HW Bush" approx. $ 6.2 billion).
                      Air group - "up to 40 aircraft".
                      The layout shows the MiG-29K and the deck version of the PAK FA. On the "deck" of the layout - 21 T-50K and 8 MiG-29K. There are no other aircraft (in particular, AWACS) on the layout, as well as helicopters, although the basing of the latter is obvious - at least the search and rescue Ka-27PS. If it is confirmed that the aircraft carrier is not equipped with catapults, the basing of the Ka-31 AWACS helicopters is also seen as necessary. A large helicopter spot is marked aft.
                      Three aircraft lifter.
                      Design features:
                      The first and most important point with which you need to decide - the way to start.
                      Judging by the markings and the position of the aircraft, the ship, like most analogs, has an 4 launch.
                      The first two definitely lead to the big springboard. Further - more difficult.
                      According to the first published photo, one could quite definitely consider that we are dealing with the reincarnation of the combined STOBAR + CATOBAR scheme of "Ulyanovsk" - two starts lead to the springboard, two starts located on the angular landing deck were equipped with catapults. The absence of catapults somewhat reduces energy consumption (which is important since the ship of large displacement is planned to be non-nuclear) and simplifies the design, as well as explains the absence of AWACS aircraft models on the deck.
                      Nevertheless, the very idea of ​​a supercarrier not equipped with catapults, and instead of them with two jumps, is very ... unusual.
                      http://sandrermakoff.livejournal.com/372282.html#

                      1. VAS 84
                        VAS 84 22 December 2013 21: 09
                        0
                        Enlighten someone in the subject: shouldn't a 21st century aircraft carrier be ATOMIC?
              2. The comment was deleted.
              3. VOLCHOXURAL
                VOLCHOXURAL 22 December 2013 12: 11
                -5
                Quote: lonely

                To be honest, building an Aircraft Carrier does not mean anything. To secure an Aircraft Carrier, you need at least 20-30 more support ships. And this takes decades.

                Moreover, the aircraft carriers were relevant for a fairly short period of time. With the advent of intercontinental missile systems, with intercontinental long-range aviation, their relevance waned. Another thing is universal, highly mobile and autonomous aircraft-carrying cruisers! Well, they wouldn’t hurt, in each of the fleets, or maybe several! And the construction of purely aircraft carriers, with whole armada of escort vessels - today this is purely drowning of huge resources and money, without any special need!
                1. VOLCHOXURAL
                  VOLCHOXURAL 23 December 2013 14: 01
                  -1
                  It seems that shkolota appears on the site at a certain time!
                  It’s interesting to zamusinut - zaminusili, but they did not give arguments on this!
                  The appearance of aircraft carriers led to two main reasons: reconnaissance (detection of enemy ships beyond the line of sight), a small range of aircraft from the Second World War! As you know, today airplanes fly much further than then. And modern missile systems have a range far greater than carrier-based fighter jets, which in essence nullify their relevance! It turns out that a modern missile cruiser, being three times smaller, much faster and more autonomous, can be more dangerous than a large and excessively expensive aircraft carrier!
                  And how can minusculeers argue their minuses? In which of the military operations over the past half century have aircraft carriers made any significant contribution ??? Except as purely symbolic? Only please, without rolling, With digits and links!
        3. AVV
          AVV 22 December 2013 14: 57
          +5
          In the light of the emerging struggle in the Arctic zone and the protection of the Arctic shelf, our country needs to strengthen the construction of Arctic ice-class fighting ships !!! Destroyers, cruisers !!! And always with helicopters and Bison on board, and they, in turn, must have Caliber in their arms !!! This is certainly expensive, but badly necessary weapons in our North !!! Suppose, in light of the lack of funds, not now, but in the future !!! But you need to have it like air !!!
      4. ferqus091
        ferqus091 22 December 2013 10: 41
        +9
        Kibalchish
        forget about ocean dreams forever. ARE YOU TROLLED OR A WITHOUT A FUNNY?
      5. Arberes
        Arberes 22 December 2013 13: 45
        +5
        Quote: Kibalchish
        . In addition, ships are heated for two times by aircraft.

        That's it, that aviation, and in order that would not be drowned for one or two, aircraft carriers are needed! The groupings of our ships in remote areas should and must hide behind aviation! It’s cheaper to have an aircraft carrier than a network of naval bases around the world with aviation links on them ???
        Yes, I almost forgot! Article plus huge !!!
      6. pensioner
        pensioner 22 December 2013 14: 42
        +2
        Quote: Kibalchish
        the population in Russia is poor

        Well ... You don’t have to distribute your complexes to everyone. I travel around the country a lot. I have never met overt poverty ... Where the state does not really care about people, people do well without the state. Perhaps only the villages of the Kirov region. make a depressing impression (purely outwardly). And perhaps all ...
      7. Yarik
        Yarik 22 December 2013 15: 36
        +1
        Quite an adequate comment, only not "Aircraft carriers can only afford", but "the presence of aircraft carriers makes sense in case ...". Plus you.
    4. Kibalchish
      Kibalchish 22 December 2013 08: 51
      -4
      And we are told: and do not dream of having an aircraft carrier fleet

      The economy is in recession !!! What a carrier fleet !? God be with you!
      1. bolonenkov
        bolonenkov 22 December 2013 10: 15
        +1
        Quote: Kibalchish
        The economy is in recession !!! What a carrier fleet !? God be with you!

        There is no recession - you are lying, there is a slow growth, by the way, most likely faster than the eurozone.

        Above you lied about the "beggar people" who buy apartments from the pit, more and more flies, buys tours over the hill, and creates traffic jams, even in small towns.

        And about aircraft carriers on this resource, all points of view have already been presented, and there is only one conclusion, if you build an avik just to have it, then this is nonsense, but to build an AUG we do not have time yet, since this will take at least 10 15 years (how long has the most aircraft-carrying country in the world been building?). It is better at this time to build up the grouping of missile-carrying submarines, Varshavyanka-class submarines, frigates, destroyers and corvettes.
        For a baton in a hand is better than a drawing on paper.
        P.S. I remember that Rogozin said that draft design work on Avik is underway? or already covered?
        1. Kibalchish
          Kibalchish 22 December 2013 11: 06
          +4
          Once again I promise to argue with fools and every time I break down. The economy is ALREADY in recession and industry has begun to decline. SLOW GROWTH ??? You do not watch Putin’s TV, but read the economists on the network. Or do you think brains are propaganda? And this is not liberal horror stories, but reality.
          I don’t know who buys apartments from you and flies around Nice, but in our Volgograd Region people barely make ends meet. And all because of you bastards dreaming of the Olympics and aircraft carriers.
          1. Know-nothing
            Know-nothing 22 December 2013 11: 21
            +8
            In Moscow, they buy and fly. And that the Arkhangelsk region is almost bankrupt, for example, it’s not important http://dengi.29.ru/text/news_fin/703439.html
            Here we must think about how to feed the Caucasus when the treasury is empty ...
            1. sledgehammer102
              sledgehammer102 22 December 2013 11: 56
              +1
              Quote: Dunno
              In Moscow, they buy and fly

              Believe me, and not only in Moscow.
            2. VAS 84
              VAS 84 22 December 2013 12: 48
              +2
              If at least 2/3 of the enterprises are withdrawn from offshore, then there may be enough money to help re-equip the fleet and the Arkhangelsk region.
              1. AVV
                AVV 22 December 2013 23: 53
                +1
                Actually, you need to strive to take 100% of the campaigns offshore, America is not shy, it’s fighting all three skins, even from individuals who have renounced American citizenship !!! And every second person in the Caucasus lives in his huge house, officially doesn’t work anywhere, but he doesn’t want to pay for gas and electricity !!! That's where huge debts hang !!! That's why there is not enough money in the Arkhangelsk region !!!
          2. sledgehammer102
            sledgehammer102 22 December 2013 11: 55
            +1
            Quote: Kibalchish
            The economy is ALREADY in recession and industry has begun to decline. SLOW GROWTH ??? You do not watch Putin’s TV, but read the economists on the network. Or do you think brains are propaganda? And this is not liberal horror stories, but reality.


            If this is reality, then why is it not displayed in the charts of the IMF and the World Bank? The GROWTH recession is everywhere, but the growth recession is not recession or stagnation, but simply the GROWTH DECLINE, which is everywhere, and most importantly in the EU, our main trading partner.

            But the analysts, they are the analysts, so that every 5 years they shout that Russia is on the verge of some kind of catastrophe that is about to happen, they don’t know when, but it’s for sure.

            Quote: Kibalchish
            I don’t know who buys apartments from you and flies around Nice, but in our Volgograd Region people barely make ends meet. And all because of you bastards dreaming of the Olympics and aircraft carriers.

            If each pensioner increases payments on 20 bucks (620 rubles), then this will increase the burden on the budget by 12 billions of dollars, so Sochi and its entire infrastructure, namely:
            1) tens of kilometers of sewer pipes
            2) over 367 km of road bridges and roads
            3) over 480 km of gas pipelines
            4) over 201 km of rail
            5) over 550 km of high voltage power lines
            6) 690 km of engineering networks
            7) a power plant with a total capacity of 1,2 GW, and I'm not talking about sports facilities

            will be "eaten up" in 2-3 years, and this is without taking into account the state employees, with them it will take a couple of years. And I have big doubts that after this "increase" on the forums will cease to emit bile on this matter.

            And the fact that the welfare of citizens is growing is a fact, and houses are being bought up, and passenger traffic is growing, and the number of new cars, quite expensive, is a positive (albeit not as bright as many would like, including me) trend, which is more important than the individual facts that you cited, by the way, you also need to understand them, whether you lied for an hour.
            1. VAS 84
              VAS 84 22 December 2013 12: 57
              +2
              I agree with you in connection with the Olympics, as everyone forgets about the Infrastructure built from scratch. Before this construction, there was dumped in the sea of ​​feces.
            2. doctor.75
              doctor.75 22 December 2013 14: 09
              +2
              Krasava! I respect.
            3. Airman
              Airman 22 December 2013 18: 37
              0
              Quote: sledgehammer102
              , As follows:
              1) tens of kilometers of sewer pipes
              2) over 367 km of road bridges and roads
              3) over 480 km of gas pipelines
              4) over 201 km of rail
              5) over 550 km of high voltage power lines
              6) 690 km of engineering networks
              7) a power plant with a total capacity of 1,2 GW, and I'm not talking about sports facilities


              And what, sewer pipes have ceased to be engineering networks? And then sports facilities will turn into super and megastores. And the Olympics cost much more than 12 billion rubles, and even dollars.
              .
              1. sledgehammer102
                sledgehammer102 22 December 2013 18: 50
                +1
                Quote: Povshnik
                And what, sewer pipes have ceased to be engineering networks? And then sports facilities will turn into super and megastores. And the Olympics cost much more than 12 billion rubles, and even dollars.
                .

                Re-read the message, the load will increase 12 billion dollars (per year), which will spend all the funds for the Olympics in 2-3 years, and this is not counting other state employees, you can "cope" with them in 2 years. True, another question will arise further, where to get money for a further increase, or at least for retention ... Another big project to eat through, such as South Stream, or rearmament ...
                I highlighted the sewage system, for the feces pour into the sea - Moviton, but in addition there are many other engineering structures.
          3. Yarik
            Yarik 22 December 2013 15: 50
            +1
            There would be an opportunity to deliver 100+, I would put it. good
        2. alone
          alone 22 December 2013 11: 10
          +5
          Quote: bolonenkov
          P.S. I remember that Rogozin said that draft design work on Avik is underway? or already covered?


          )) So the fact of the matter is that Rogozin said. He is a master. Talking is not yet bags to turn back. what
      2. sledgehammer102
        sledgehammer102 22 December 2013 10: 20
        +6
        Quote: Kibalchish
        The economy is in recession !!! What a carrier fleet !? God be with you!

        If there is a choice between 2-3 submarines, 10-15 missile boats, frigates and corvettes in the next 5 years and one aircraft carrier, even an AUG, who is 15 years old, then I choose the first.
    5. Alekseev
      Alekseev 22 December 2013 12: 05
      +8
      Quote: Very old
      And we are told: and do not dream of having an aircraft carrier fleet

      Dreaming is possible, it is not harmful.
      But for what tasks does the carrier fleet need Russia? Not in order to be piped up with anyone else? Spend billions to satisfy vanity?
      Confront the US Navy in the vast oceans?
      Nonsense and military, and political, and economic.
      In order to cover the Arctic, as an SSBN patrol area and an important economic region, "unsinkable aircraft carriers" on the mainland and islands are more suitable.
      To ensure the PLO and the air defense of the combination of fleet forces, strikes along the coast and enemy ships in a hypothetically possible conflict, you need to accurately imagine the extent of such a confrontation, the need to use ACG, and based on this (and from economic realities) decide whether or not to have an aircraft carrier, or two, or three, which according to the technical specifications, and of course, how many and what kind of ships, moorings, etc. for combat, technical and rear support it is necessary to create.
      And so: to have or not to have an aircraft carrier fleet is a pointless conversation for exciting an unhealthy psyche.
    6. Megatron
      Megatron 22 December 2013 19: 56
      -1
      We do not need aircraft carriers, we are not going to bomb the countries of the third world.
    7. Andrey Yuryevich
      Andrey Yuryevich 23 December 2013 03: 39
      +1
      in particular, back in March of last year in the Independent Military Review, the director of the Center for Analysis of Strategies and Technologies Ruslan Pukhov in the article “National Defense: possible savings” (see “NVO” No. 8 from March 16–22, 2012) in the light of mentioned the objective need for some reduction in defense spending indicated: “The most unobvious element of military power in the current Russian conditions is the ocean fleet” angry I don’t like to get personal, BUT to such directors as pukhoff, you need to hammer a nail for 200 into the head ...
  2. kaktus
    kaktus 22 December 2013 07: 49
    +11
    Russia is a Great Sea Power! And who is swimming at home in the bath is not an authority stop
    1. ivshubarin
      ivshubarin 22 December 2013 11: 09
      +4
      Peter the first realized that without a fleet and access to the seas Russia would not have a future
    2. The comment was deleted.
    3. AVV
      AVV 23 December 2013 00: 17
      +1
      We need islands, as has already begun to be done in the arctic ocean, to equip, rebuild bases, deploy armaments and build moorings with workshops so that our warships, submarines can refuel, repair and continue to patrol the borders of our state and the shelf! Restore airfields so that transport aviation can import everything necessary !!! The struggle for the Arctic is coming !!!
  3. Vitaly Anisimov
    Vitaly Anisimov 22 December 2013 08: 53
    +8
    In Russia, wherever you look everywhere, everything needs to be restored (they robbed us well in the 90s .. yes, and now) This "deck" needs to start with the authorities, it is already all marked and worn out .. So we will stomp .. with such "managers"
  4. Ihrek
    Ihrek 22 December 2013 08: 57
    +1
    Carriers are very expensive in production and maintenance. In this matter, Russia should go its own way, less costly and more efficient.
  5. Stasi
    Stasi 22 December 2013 09: 18
    +4
    Without a strong military as well as a merchant fleet, the state as such is worthless. The Westerners are well aware of this and are doing their best to strengthen and develop their fleets. Without the navy, would England be an empire that had a huge impact on the course of world politics and history? Russia also became an empire thanks to the navy. If the arguments of the so-called "experts" about cutting funds for the fleet are heard and implemented, then the development of the Arctic can definitely be forgotten forever. The Westerners will quickly gain a foothold there and it will be possible to knock them out from there only with a battle, for which, again, one cannot do without a powerful military fleet. If the state wants to profit from the development of the North, as well as from sea trade, it needs to build up its fleet in every possible way by updating it with new modern ships of all types and classes. So far, our renovation is proceeding very slowly, and if we again accept the program to reduce the fleet and the funds allocated for it, then we can forget about the fleet as such. What the military, economic and political consequences of all this will be is not difficult to calculate.
  6. Vitaly Anisimov
    Vitaly Anisimov 22 December 2013 09: 20
    +1
    Quote: Jamal
    Carriers are very expensive in production and maintenance. In this matter, Russia should go its own way, less costly and more efficient.

    I agree! Aircraft carriers are a kind of "democratizers" for the Anoglo-Saxons .. Such a colossus is driven to the shores of a "non-democratic" state and begins to democratize ..
  7. leks
    leks 22 December 2013 09: 31
    +6
    But let’s completely abandon the fleet and the army in order to save money so that liberals and shitmen consider our country to be the most democratic, probably even pensions will increase immediately, people in Russia will live happily, our wealth will be nationalized by the democratic west and we will live happily, feed our army once again did not want to feed !!!
    But in general, we need a separate doctrine on the construction of the fleet, and total control by the state so that it isn’t bad to do bad things, and we don’t move the deadlines, because now there’s sloppiness everywhere, enterprises have responsibility from the bottom to the top, and we only switchmen are punished.
    1. A.YARY
      A.YARY 22 December 2013 09: 42
      +9
      Alexey
      And let's completely abandon the fleet and the army


      This is their blue dream!
      And there are almost half of them even to see prices on "VO". And thanks to modern "education" there will only be more.
      Fight back!
    2. doctor.75
      doctor.75 22 December 2013 14: 13
      +2
      Under the Union, such a system was. Everything has already been invented, it remains only to return.
  8. Vitaly Anisimov
    Vitaly Anisimov 22 December 2013 09: 32
    +3
    Yes, we will restore the fleet! Russia without a powerful fleet is not Russia .. Now I think the main thing is that the nuclear submarines are new and the more the better .. (to stand on combat duty in all corners of the oceans!
    1. alone
      alone 22 December 2013 10: 29
      +2
      In order for nuclear submarines to be on alert duty on all corners of the oceans, you first need to have an extensive network of naval bases around the world. But judging by reports from Montenegro, few people want to provide Russia with these bases.

      http://www.mk.ru/politics/world/news/2013/12/20/962920-chernogoriya-otkazala-ros
      sii-v-stroitelstve-voennomorskoy-bazyi.html
      1. VOLCHOXURAL
        VOLCHOXURAL 22 December 2013 10: 48
        -1
        Quote: lonely
        In order for nuclear submarines to be on alert duty on all corners of the oceans, you first need to have an extensive network of naval bases around the world. But judging by reports from Montenegro, few people want to provide Russia with these bases.


        It’s somehow strange that you judge the whole world - according to Chkrnogoria alone. request
        So we should think that if only the Minister of Defense of Montenegro, "lured" for the sake of joining NATO against, means against all over the world? wassat Strange logic! what
        1. alone
          alone 22 December 2013 10: 52
          +1
          this is not the case. Montenegro is just one example. Do you think of some bases in Venezuela, Cuba, Syria and, say, Vietnam, it will be possible to plow Submarines all corners of the oceans? No.
          1. VOLCHOXURAL
            VOLCHOXURAL 22 December 2013 11: 02
            +1
            Well, actually, modern nuclear submarines are autonomous - this, in fact, is one of their main qualities. And the presence of foreign bases does not affect their capabilities!
            And in order to restrain the "axis of evil" from North America, at one time Cuba was enough!
            Or do you suggest trying to militarize the whole world?
            Although in some places military bases, of course, would not hurt! soldier
            1. alone
              alone 22 December 2013 11: 12
              +3
              Quote: VOLCHONOKSURALA
              Although in some places military bases, of course, would not hurt!

              wink Well, what am I talking about)) The submarine is autonomous, but the products for the crew are not infinite. hi
  9. vasiliysxx
    vasiliysxx 22 December 2013 09: 35
    +4
    Oh, the galleys would have them, corrupt saboteurs.
  10. Ivanovich47
    Ivanovich47 22 December 2013 09: 46
    +5
    Shambles in one direction or another will not lead to good. There was a time N.S., Khrushchev destroyed aircraft and barrel artillery, deciding to replace them with missiles. Then the turn came and the Navy. Life has shown that the effectiveness of the use of the Armed Forces Depends on the integrated, harmonious use of the Strategic Nuclear Triad, Ground Forces, Air Force and Navy. And underestimating one of them will lead to disastrous results.
  11. shpuntik
    shpuntik 22 December 2013 10: 08
    +3
    The root cause of such proposals is a rather difficult financial and economic situation,

    How many spears can be broken? If we assume that the government is in power in Russia, then everything falls into place. And the fact that industry is kept on a starvation diet, and that the Jesuit’s delivery of equipment to the troops is dosed: if the plane is without avionics, if the ship, then the gun is not ready, and so on.
    The second point: the amount of money.
    - As you know, of the 19,5 trillion rubles envisaged for procurement in the interests of the Ministry of Defense, 4,4 trillion is reserved for naval weapons and equipment.

    There will be trillions, but not all of them will reach. Instead of the planned ten submarines of pr.885 "Yasen" they are building 6-7, and there is already talk that they are too expensive. What is this circus ?? what

    Here, a "simple" cook-scout explains everything, from the 2nd minute exactly:
  12. Vitaly Anisimov
    Vitaly Anisimov 22 December 2013 10: 10
    +3
    Quote: Ivanovich47
    Shambles in one direction or another will not lead to good. There was a time N.S., Khrushchev destroyed aircraft and barrel artillery, deciding to replace them with missiles. Then the turn came and the Navy. Life has shown that the effectiveness of the use of the Armed Forces Depends on the integrated, harmonious use of the Strategic Nuclear Triad, Ground Forces, Air Force and Navy. And underestimating one of them will lead to disastrous results.

    The golden mean should be .. Correctly wrote ..!
  13. Liberty Lighthouse
    Liberty Lighthouse 22 December 2013 10: 15
    .
    No one is building aircraft carriers with bare jo-poi. All carrier powers are highly developed self-sufficient states.
    After the defeat in the Cold War, Russia was allowed to leave the fleet, although it was necessary to allow the maximum coast guard. So the neighbors are calmer and the Russians themselves are easier.
    1. VOLCHOXURAL
      VOLCHOXURAL 22 December 2013 10: 36
      +4
      Quote: Freedom Lighthouse
      No one is building aircraft carriers with bare jo-poi. All carrier powers are highly developed self-sufficient states.
      After the defeat in the Cold War, Russia was allowed to leave the fleet, although it was necessary to allow the maximum coast guard. So the neighbors are calmer and the Russians themselves are easier.

      The shouts do not doze off !!! laughing
      Such "stuffing" sincerely amuses me!

      Above
      Quote: Freedom Lighthouse
      highly developed self-sufficient states.

      И
      Quote: Freedom Lighthouse
      allowed to leave the fleet, although it was necessary to allow maximum coast guard. So the neighbors are calmer and the Russians themselves are easier.

      My slippers are especially cut short !!! wassat laughing
      1. Arberes
        Arberes 22 December 2013 15: 35
        +4
        Liberty LighthouseYes, write then honestly not lighthouse, "The Statue of Liberty"!
        Is this your real nickname?
        So, buddy ??? lol
    2. ivshubarin
      ivshubarin 22 December 2013 10: 59
      +2
      Is this your goat. Mosyatsko-drug addiction highly developed self-sufficient country allowed Russia to leave the fleet?
    3. The comment was deleted.
    4. nikcris
      nikcris 22 December 2013 15: 03
      +3
      Not always. It’s even funny to read such nonsense. I didn’t give you a minus, because it’s a sin to laugh at the poor.
    5. zevs379
      zevs379 22 December 2013 19: 48
      +2
      [quote = Liberty Lighthouse] although it was necessary to allow the maximum coast guard. So the neighbors are calmer and the Russians themselves are easier. [/ Quote


      It’s easier for us when any bastard knows that at any moment you can get lyuley angry Therefore, we are better off without a Mercedes, but with the ARMY AND NAVY!

      PS- when conscience wakes up and you want to strangle yourself do not mix up the tree - for Judas only ASPEN hi
    6. saturn.mmm
      saturn.mmm 22 December 2013 21: 18
      +2
      Quote: Lighthouse of Liberty
      All carrier powers are highly developed self-sufficient states.

      Your self-contained debt beacon is above the roof.
  14. Stinger
    Stinger 22 December 2013 10: 17
    +2
    I liked the article. Very balanced and well-reasoned. Among other things, we can add that the ship industry has just begun to breathe. Therefore, those who like to “wait and then buy” should remember that in order to buy, they must first make. To do it, you need to have the capacity and staff. The GPV has been formed and must be implemented. And there are many who like to "clarify". As Lebed used to say: Horses are not changed at the crossing, but donkeys can and should be changed.
  15. Vadim12
    Vadim12 22 December 2013 10: 22
    +3
    The coast of Russia is washed by 13 seas and oceans, the length of the border by water is about 40 thousand kilometers. And some call Russia a purely land power, which does not need a fleet!
    1. Liberty Lighthouse
      Liberty Lighthouse 22 December 2013 10: 28
      .
      Most of these coasts freeze. The Russian fleet is not needed. She is technologically not able to build it either financially. Russians should forget about ocean dreams forever.
      1. ferqus091
        ferqus091 22 December 2013 10: 52
        +4
        DO NOT WAIT. YOU ARE A HEAD, AND WE ARE QUIETLY CONTINUED TO BUILD UP THE ARMY AND NAVY FORCE
        1. Arberes
          Arberes 22 December 2013 14: 27
          +4
          Quote: Lighthouse of Liberty
          Russians should forget about ocean dreams forever.

          Forget when you will be gone in this world! From the states or what?
          Thanks for your comment. I hope that no one else doubts about our Russian fleet?

          Quote: ferqus091
          DO NOT WAIT. YOU ARE A HEAD, AND WE ARE QUIETLY CONTINUED TO BUILD UP THE ARMY AND NAVY FORCE

          Let me hit your mug, dear ferqus091 drinks
          1. ferqus091
            ferqus091 22 December 2013 16: 08
            +2
            I will be happy to support you drinks
      2. VOLCHOXURAL
        VOLCHOXURAL 22 December 2013 10: 53
        +4
        Quote: Freedom Lighthouse
        Most of these coasts freeze. The Russian fleet is not needed. She is technologically not able to build it either financially. Russians should forget about ocean dreams forever.

        belay It looks like an ultimatum from the State Department syshya! fellow
        Or wild bleating, violently insane, Mrs. Clinton! laughing
        Although the same wink
        1. doctor.75
          doctor.75 22 December 2013 14: 19
          +4
          Sa-am you know! wassat laughing
      3. ivshubarin
        ivshubarin 22 December 2013 11: 03
        +5
        Hear the lighthouse shine from here
        1. ferqus091
          ferqus091 22 December 2013 16: 20
          +4
          He smiled, the Russian language is rich in degeneration without a mat good
      4. kartalovkolya
        kartalovkolya 22 December 2013 12: 39
        +3
        Dream, dream, maybe you’ll wait for a penny! Financially, Russia today alone saves (by the hands of corrupt liberals) your support ----- the United States! And as soon as the GDP cuts off this "umbilical cord" she will receive a kirdyk. All of you exist only by stealing Russian resource. And about freezing, not freezing I will answer simply, in Russia the most powerful icebreaker fleet in the world!
      5. vasiliysxx
        vasiliysxx 22 December 2013 16: 10
        +1
        Are you jealous? Oh tusk you are a tusk negative
      6. 11111mail.ru
        11111mail.ru 22 December 2013 18: 16
        +4
        Oh Russia! forget the former glory:
        The two-headed eagle is afflicted
        And yellow children for fun
        Given the shreds of your banners.

        Resigned to awe and fear
        Who could forget the covenant of love ...
        And the Third Rome lies in dust
        And there shouldn’t be a fourth.
        V.S.Soloviev 1894

        Written 10 years before Tsushima and the surrender of Port Arthur.
        Half a century passed and Russia returned to Port Arthur, defeating the samurai offspring. The victorious Stalinist troops in three weeks rolled into a pancake "the invincible army of the divine mikado."
        Nothing is eternal under the Moon! We will return also to the open spaces of the oceans. If there is movement, then there will be a jackal barking at us with homosexuals.
  16. sevtrash
    sevtrash 22 December 2013 11: 24
    0
    There are problems even with the existing fleet. The real effectiveness of the Russian submarine fleet - how many SSBN submarines are in the sea? One or two? Or not a single one? How are they covered? What is the likelihood that at least one of the existing nuclear submarines will be able to launch if necessary? Not technically, no (although this may be a question), but given the opposition of a potential adversary? And given that this opposition can be implemented from the moment of the decision at headquarters on the withdrawal of the SSBN.
    1. PSih2097
      PSih2097 22 December 2013 14: 31
      +2
      Quote: sevtrash
      What is the likelihood that at least one of the existing nuclear submarines will be able to launch if necessary? Not technically, no (although this may be a question), but given the opposition of a potential adversary? And given that this opposition can be implemented from the moment of the decision at headquarters on the withdrawal of the SSBN.

      If necessary, it may not go anywhere, but shoot straight from the pier ...
      1. sevtrash
        sevtrash 22 December 2013 15: 29
        0
        Quote: PSih2097
        If necessary, it may not go anywhere, but shoot straight from the pier ...

        The key word is not noticed - in the face of opposition? Or do you think that the secrecy in the parking lot at the base is higher or there are bases unknown to the enemy?
        And another question - is a full launch from the place of basing possible?
  17. indiggo
    indiggo 22 December 2013 11: 39
    +6
    Those who believe that the Russian fleet is not needed, please leave the window and preferably above.
  18. Yuri Y.
    Yuri Y. 22 December 2013 12: 11
    +4
    Problems have always been and will be. They always have to be decided on the basis of specific conditions. During the war, at first there were no guns; they were shot down from rifles (PTR); there was no aluminum, they were built of plywood (and they didn’t fly badly) well, etc. A fleet is needed for anyone, at least as a nuclear deterrent.
  19. kartalovkolya
    kartalovkolya 22 December 2013 12: 30
    +2
    The article is correct and timely, but I must note that there are very few concrete facts and it's time to name the "heroes" of the new "Tsushima" of our fleet. And such "analysts" as Ruslan Pukhov, with their little articles, simply take everyone away from the main culprits of the current situation in the Russian Navy are trying to "veil" the existing and future threats. After all, these figures imagined themselves to be the most brilliant analysts and strategists in matters of COUNTRY DEFENSE, but the Russian tsars were smarter and knew that Russia had only two allies - the ARMY and the Navy (and where are all our former allies in the Warsaw Pact? And brothers for the entire 20 How many times have you sided with our enemies?) Napoleon was truly right: "He who does not want to feed his army will feed someone else's!" The Russian military fleet is needed like air, without it we simply have no future!
    1. Volkhov
      Volkhov 22 December 2013 12: 59
      0
      Quote: kartalovkolya
      The article is correct and timely, but I must note that there are very few concrete facts and it is time to name the "heroes" of the new "Tsushima" of our fleet.

      The heroes of the new Tsushima wear black suits with black ties on occasions and they are clearly visible on TV.
      There is an article about nothing - Tsushima is, there is no fleet and is not necessary at the current level of competence.
      The people have always compensated for the mistakes and sabotage of the authorities - and now, instead of the "fleet" for Tsushima, from the state it is necessary to build a raft for the people independently
      http://sinteh.info/?p=2033
      and preserving the people to biologically develop their brains so that there is a fleet corresponding to the situation and goals of their people ... and not as it is now.
  20. max702
    max702 22 December 2013 13: 25
    0
    What nah aircraft carriers ?? In the army there are no normal boots for every soldier in abundance, traveling gear, communications equipment and much more that EVERY DAY is used! No matter peace or war. And you are aircraft carriers .. as for me, all these frigates and others will stand and rust at the berth or on big holidays go out to sea to display a flag, they will never fight .. if the fleet starts to fight with ships, this means that the conflict with NATO! And this application of nuclear weapons sooner or later for a very short period of time, and only after that the nuclear arctic fox will come to everyone .. and the aircraft carriers will be there or what other ships it will not matter. There will always be conflicts in which the ground army is fighting, it is border protection, and the destruction of bandit formations and other local conflicts that will be solved by the infantry Vanya .. can we finally think about it?
    1. Ripper
      Ripper 22 December 2013 14: 02
      0
      Quote: max702
      What nah aircraft carriers ?? In the army there are no normal boots for every soldier in abundance, traveling gear, communications equipment and much more that EVERY DAY is used!

      But you get beautiful pictures with the Supreme on the bridge! For the sake of this, it is worth tightening your belts! As with the Olympics, and, scary to think, the 2018 World Championships. What will happen! Maybe in the know, the soldiers have completely switched to socks? The term was - a year! Yes, everything went out! And the aircraft carriers, for the patriots, who have slanted from the army for diarrhea, are sacred! Painfully beautiful pictures! Looked - and as if he himself served! Breathing sea ozone for clave!
    2. kartalovkolya
      kartalovkolya 22 December 2013 18: 02
      +2
      Well, of course, you can't fight without shoes and footcloths, but this is a question for the quartermasters, whom, as A.V. Suvorov used to say, after a while of service in the quartermaster office, you need to hang them up. "sorry", what and how will you oppose the US and NATO ship-based missile defense systems? Only the Fleet can oppose all the ideas of our "sworn friends" in all sea areas near the borders of Russia. And you ... what aircraft carriers ... will stand and rust ... Judging by your flag, they will rust at the berths of the Hero-City of Minsk !?
  21. not good
    not good 22 December 2013 14: 01
    0
    I propose to start saving budget funds by reducing the salaries of analysts so that they think before chatting
  22. doctor.75
    doctor.75 22 December 2013 14: 03
    +2
    Quote: Kibalchish
    Once again I promise to argue with fools and every time I break down. The economy is ALREADY in recession and industry has begun to decline. SLOW GROWTH ??? You do not watch Putin’s TV, but read the economists on the network. Or do you think brains are propaganda? And this is not liberal horror stories, but reality.
    I don’t know who buys apartments from you and flies around Nice, but in our Volgograd Region people barely make ends meet. And all because of you bastards dreaming of the Olympics and aircraft carriers.

    What, uncle, do you organize visiting traffic jams on your roads? Or where? He will drag me here for aircraft carriers, you see! In North Korea, there’s nothing to eat at all, and they’re harboring Kuz'kin’s mother ...
    Sorry! hi
  23. svp67
    svp67 22 December 2013 14: 10
    +3
    I agree with the author that the fleet needs to be developed, but our country is now in such a situation that it is necessary to urgently re-equip the entire army and, of course, the priority tasks here are precisely in the land and aerospace component, since without this, the fleet will not be needed, so how he will have nothing to "rely on". But again, the construction of ships is not a matter of one day or even a month, therefore, a reasonable military doctrine is already needed, it is necessary to start R&D on new ships and develop a production base for their construction, as well as to prepare PERSONNEL ... and as soon as it is not enough we will be ready in the slightest degree - to lay new ships ...
  24. Tetros
    Tetros 22 December 2013 14: 12
    +3
    The fleet is currently a very vulnerable thing off the coast. And if the goal is not to land, say, in the USA, then personally I am inclined to believe that submarines, patrol boats and one large unit are needed to create fear in the "banana republics." And that is all.

    That is, of course, the nuclear triad must be preserved ALWAYS, which is being done, and in the future it should be converted into a "nuclear square" - water, earth, air, space. But you should not indulge in all sorts of AUG.

    PS Finish with these already - shoot everyone, turn 180, nationalize everything, etc. Management of the country, like an aircraft, does not tolerate sudden, rash steering wheel movements, the end is always the same - a disaster. One pulled out - 1917 and away we go, the second spun in 1991, smoothly it is necessary, gently and gradually, even when it comes to "tightening the screws."
  25. chunga-changa
    chunga-changa 22 December 2013 14: 16
    +3
    All this whining. Practice has shown that, despite the money spent, the shipbuilders did not give a result. Everything except boats and the Caspian flotilla, either does not work, or works in parts. It is not clear that continuing to invest sooner or later everything will work, although it may not. But even the blind can understand that the manufacturers of weapons for the ground forces spend on shipbuilders like a sheep a sheep. And while wisely spending money on land you can still re-equip yourself in the required amounts with the available money, but at sea, catching up opponents by the number of units does not shine for us in principle, even if everything works as it should. And without an adequate amount, we get a fleet that can do something only in peacetime, and in the event of war it quickly and without problems gets blocked and drowned.
    It should be added that on land we also don’t have everything in chocolate, in principle, any of the opponents (China, NATO) surpasses our army in quantity, and in many areas also in quality. And if our ground army is defeated, no fleet will help in any way, just like its absence.
    1. svp67
      svp67 22 December 2013 15: 26
      0
      Quote: chunga-changa
      And if our ground army is defeated, no fleet will help in any way, just like its absence.
      You are in vain. The importance of the fleet at the seaside theater of operations for the stability of land groups cannot be underestimated ...
      1. chunga-changa
        chunga-changa 22 December 2013 17: 20
        -2
        Well, why in vain. The main forces will be defeated far from the seaside theater. In Europe, the coverage of Belarus, in Asia in the north of Kazakhstan. Strikes in Primorye and in the north of the Kola Peninsula will be carried out with the aim of depriving the fleet of bases, with its parallel destruction. If this is not done, the situation on earth will not change much. Nobody will send convoys to us in Murmansk, and by itself it is not very important.
        Only the imbecile will not be able to block the Baltic Fleet. The only exit from the base in Baltiysk with a width of 500 meters is mined as well as 200 km of a shallow Gulf of Finland, shot through through. Plus, the only prospective naval base in the Black Sea. In general, if you face the truth, at the current level of searching and destroying the surface forces of the fleet, the only really useful component is the submarine, and as we all know, shipbuilders for some reason ceased to turn out as they should. And the rocketers have ceased to get rockets for them. While I repeat, there are problems on land, too, but at least they can be solved for sane money and time.
  26. nikcris
    nikcris 22 December 2013 15: 28
    -1
    The Russian fleet was needed twice - For bending down Turkey and swelling Sweden.
    To do this, it was necessary to saw more trees - this is figuratively, I'm kidding.
    More seriously, Somali pirates are much easier to kill unborn.
    Everything in between events is a series of moronic spending
  27. musya
    musya 22 December 2013 16: 05
    0
    Remember the blockade of Leningrad. Who helped the ground forces defend the city-navy. And now, when our country is being surrounded from all sides, without the Navy it will be very difficult to fight the enemy. And money must be earned, not moaned. Stupid experts need to be silent.
    1. nikcris
      nikcris 22 December 2013 19: 50
      +1
      Yes!!!!!
      For the defense of Leningrad, the Baltic Fleet was whetted. And the Marines trained exclusively for landing on their own territory.
      Just did not ask again.
      1. Ripper
        Ripper 23 December 2013 09: 18
        0
        Quote: nikcris
        And the Marines trained exclusively for landing on their own territory.

        As far as I remember, a land explorer, the Marine Corps, as a kind of troops in the Red Army was not. There were battalions hastily formed from the crew of ships sunk or blocked at their bases. Not from a good life, like a people's militia.
        Although, unofficially, even in the Pinsk flotilla, a company of the so-called. "Marine Corps." Maybe I'm wrong. I do not like to trump "wikimoins."
        1. nikcris
          nikcris 23 December 2013 13: 06
          0
          I was not going to develop a stream of consciousness by searching for the date of the appearance of the Marine Corps. For some reason, it is thought that S. Razin would hardly have stolen the princess without one. And it would be difficult to add a shield to the gates of Istanbul without it.

          And they correctly remembered the Pinsk Flotilla - without infantry, it never surrendered to the FF.

          PS I, pliS, indicate which base of the Navy was blocked to such an extent that the crew was forced to go to the foot soldiers. And I don’t remember the couple. Aging, apparently ...
  28. Saburo
    Saburo 22 December 2013 16: 37
    0
    Hmm, it seems that now any article about the development of the fleet turns into a "discussion" about the need for aircraft carriers. Moreover, those who in one article assure that at least four aircraft carriers per fleet are needed, in the next they declare that it is time to go under water at all. And before that, of course, you need to shoot everyone and nationalize everything. We always have continuous extremes ...

    Personally, in my opinion, now in any case it makes no sense for us to build super-aircraft carriers "like America's." Of course, an aircraft carrier is very cool and immediately shows all the Baltic states who is in charge here, this will exhaust its practical application. To begin with, we need at least modern destroyers, like the British Type 45. After all, even if we lay down an aircraft carrier, this will not happen until 2020, and by that time most of our modern surface fleet will be, if not for decommissioning, then in in any case, it will be significantly inferior to the fleets of other countries.
  29. The comment was deleted.
  30. Arh
    Arh 22 December 2013 17: 10
    +2

    A few Strokes. . . wink
  31. washi
    washi 22 December 2013 18: 17
    -2
    I read the comments of the DRAGES and was horrified.
    The fleet is the most conservative and corrupt organization.
    You can not talk about the fleet without serving on it REALLY.
    There are feats and pedorostia. There is complete stupidity and heroism.
    There has been no normal leadership since the time of Ushakov.
    The teachers at the VMU wrote off those who screwed up the ships, or those whom they did not take ANYWHERE, because of their moral and psychological qualities or complete stupidity.
    In our school (land in the 80s) there was a competition for teachers and com platoons.

    Without the fleet there is no victory either in the air or on land
    In fact, the fleet has continuous losses and no use so far ...
    Glass (Stogolm) was taken DRY.
    SEVASTOPOL and Odessa flew the fleet. And they defended the land.
    With the capture of Crimea, Romania, Bulgaria, East Prussia and Germany itself, the Navy did not play any role.
    There were some points (already in recent history), but they do not justify the investment.
    I hope so far ....
    The fleet is a large manger, with no real results.
    The union of fleets and districts played a minus.
    Navy and land hate each other.
    The Marine Corps hates EVERYBODY because of its humiliated position due to underfunding from the fleet, transferring BLACK berets to all kinds of police units and Airborne Forces (although the Marines WILL BEAT, BEAT AND BEAT ALL)
  32. kartalovkolya
    kartalovkolya 22 December 2013 18: 18
    0
    I tried to comment on the article and some comments on it and immediately responded (the text is unacceptable for publication). And I just stated that someone really did not like the revival of the Russian Navy, as a guarantee of the inviolability of our maritime borders and the sovereignty of the country. So draw conclusions who and for how much we gag! And not a word of foul language and insults.
    1. Airman
      Airman 22 December 2013 18: 53
      -2
      Quote: kartalovkolya
      I tried to comment on the article and some comments on it and immediately responded (the text is unacceptable for publication). And I just stated that someone really did not like the revival of the Russian Navy, as a guarantee of the inviolability of our maritime borders and the sovereignty of the country. So draw conclusions who and for how much we gag! And not a word of foul language and insults.

      GUARANTEE A guarantee of the inviolability of our maritime borders is NOT needed.
  33. Odysseus
    Odysseus 22 December 2013 18: 44
    0
    I completely agree with my comrades who criticize the economic and social policy of the government, but to change it, a revolution is needed, if we proceed from the current realities, then, unfortunately, they will save on the Navy.
    It is simply not visible other options. Obviously, there are 2 "sacred cows" on which it is impossible to economize - Strategic Missile Forces and VKO.
    It is also impossible to save on the air force state of aviation and so critical, and its role in modern wars is huge.
    There remain the "landowners" and the fleet. But the army has been cut down at the very least, the modernization of weapons there, if it goes on the most economical options, there is simply nowhere else.
    Alas, the fleet remains .... But this, again, based on current realities.
    1. Onyx
      Onyx 22 December 2013 18: 56
      +1
      You can save on the Strategic Missile Forces: just do not create a heavy liquid rocket and BZHRK. This is a lot of money.
      1. Odysseus
        Odysseus 22 December 2013 19: 13
        +2
        Quote: Onyx
        You can save on the Strategic Missile Forces: just do not create a heavy liquid rocket and BZHRK. This is a lot of money.

        And what are we left with? With a scanty number of modernized Topols? After all, the RS-18 and RS-20 have long worked out all the deadlines, they are being pulled simply "for the sake of orphanhood."
        But the Strategic Missile Forces are the main deterrent to both NATO and the PRC.
        Saving on Strategic Rocket Forces is simply impossible.
        1. Onyx
          Onyx 22 December 2013 19: 19
          +2
          Quote: Odyssey
          And what will we stay with? With a scanty number of modernized Topol

          Topoley-М and Yars in the troops already more than 110. Only next year 22 Yars will arrive. If you increase their output (and the possibilities of cooperation allow this), then you can put a sufficient number of Yars both mobile and mine-based on duty.
          1. Odysseus
            Odysseus 22 December 2013 20: 36
            0
            Quote: Onyx
            Topoley-M and Yars in the army is already more than 110. Only next year 22 Yars will arrive. If you increase their output (and the possibilities of cooperation allow this), then you can put a sufficient number of Yars both mobile and mine-based on duty.

            Perhaps you need to ask the rocket launchers here. But this idea looks dubious-RS-18, RS-20 and the old Poplars (also with transcendental life) are 1270 warheads. In order to replace all of them with Yars, it will take 20 years, that is, either reduce the total number of warheads or dramatically increase production (and this is a lot of money).
            In any case, the exotic idea of ​​saving not on the fleet, but on the Strategic Missile Forces is unlikely to be popular in the General Staff.
  34. akmoa781
    akmoa781 22 December 2013 18: 47
    +3
    Ha, the fact that the Fatherland needs a fleet is not in any doubt, but the fleet needs the best.
    1. Ripper
      Ripper 22 December 2013 19: 36
      0
      Quote: akmoa781
      Ha, the fact that the Fatherland needs a fleet is not in any doubt, but the fleet needs the best.

      And the water is the wettest, and the air is the most oxygen, and the vodka is the strongest, and .......
      1. nikcris
        nikcris 22 December 2013 20: 12
        0
        Here it is more careful in the estimates - the strongest vodka is moonshine.
  35. Vitaly Anisimov
    Vitaly Anisimov 22 December 2013 19: 38
    +2
    Quote: akmoa781
    Ha, the fact that the Fatherland needs a fleet is not in any doubt, but the fleet needs the best.

    Everything will be peasants! Now a new Russia is being built .. (it’s hard difficult, it is possible with blood ..) We are hammering hard on all fronts (especially inside) We will not break through for the first time .. (these are not slogans just from the soul ..) We’ll tear everyone. . fellow
  36. Andrey Peter
    Andrey Peter 22 December 2013 21: 00
    +1
    Quote: A.YARY
    TO NATIONALIZE ALL NATURAL WEALTHS and this "anecdote" will end. Shooting EVERYONE who is involved in this will end another anecdote!

    For this with both hands fellow And here's the heading of the article? It’s necessary to develop all directions, and to focus on the fleet or on other types of troops is stupid hi
  37. coserg 2012
    coserg 2012 22 December 2013 22: 01
    +2
    Normal article (+). Often in the comments I come across allegations that it was better with the alliance. And it seems to me that it was only all this foam that climbed out to the top now. the berths of 80-2 hulls were squeezed. And as the souring officers went sour, again Kildin Western (because there is no fuel) What kind of service is this? Now the men grumble that the motor resource is coming to an end, but any motor resource is calculated with a margin. And if it is very necessary with proper operation you can still walk around. The main service is not at the pier. That's just the criterion according to which whineers and should be attributed to the shore, who do not want to go to the seas. At 3 m we were given boots not formal (bastards) 76, which a month later cracked on the bends and the shoemaker (civilian) put patches. We had one record-holder, on one boot, seven patches. In Severomorsk, at the berth at the ships, the suppliers unloaded half carcasses of beef with a stamp 1943, this was in 1962. All this was in the USSR . I answer!
  38. erofich
    erofich 22 December 2013 22: 44
    +2
    I am amazed how one can believe what is written over the hill about the Russian economy. Recession or rise. Yes, they will never write the truth. And in the time of Peter, Russia was a beggar, not a couple of the present, but still they built a fleet and an army.
  39. Sergey S.
    Sergey S. 23 December 2013 00: 33
    0
    Quote: erofich
    And in the time of Peter, Russia was a beggar, not a couple of the present, but still they built a fleet and an army.

    They were never beggars, neither under Peter, nor under Yeltsin. But the injustice of the distribution of national wealth in different periods of history was not the same.
    During periods of national upsurge, with a concentration of forces and resources, when the external threat went off scale, funds for the fleet were found.
    So it was under Peter, under Catherine, under Stalin, Khrushchev and Brezhnev.
    When the country was led by stupid proud women like Alexander I, Nicholas I, Nicholas II or Gorbachev, the fleet rapidly grew weak and fell apart ...
    So it’s not about money, but about the function of the goal.

    I would very much like to understand the function of the goal of our rulers ...
  40. DPN
    DPN 23 December 2013 00: 56
    -2
    Quote: Far East
    PU. answered the press conference to the correspondent NEVER touch them.


    Of course you can’t, he will rule the country forever, but he will not be able to retire. Caring for himself, he will not be touched and untouched. Like Gorbachev.
  41. DPN
    DPN 23 December 2013 01: 12
    -2
    Quote: coserg 2012
    1962 is in 1977. All this was in the USSR. I answer!


    This speaks only of one thing. The USSR had its own strategic food reserves (NZ), which should be replaced. Now, if we squeeze each other we will squeeze each other, look at the store shelves there is a lot of Russian there.
    1. coserg 2012
      coserg 2012 23 December 2013 19: 13
      0
      By the way, in the same 1977, according to the words of my officers (whom I have no reason not to trust) when checking the fleet’s warehouses, for which the estimated reserve was supposed to be for 10 (ten) years. Only 3 (three ) of the year. This is in the USSR!
  42. DPN
    DPN 23 December 2013 01: 20
    0
    Quote: Novel 1977
    Well, yes, like this ...

    or so ...

    They are the country of the order and monuments puts, and YOU them to the wall, I support the wall for a long time.
  43. kartalovkolya
    kartalovkolya 23 December 2013 09: 24
    0
    Something all together we began to "jump aside" from one extreme to another: if about the revival of the fleet, then whether aircraft carriers or submarines are needed, if about the ground forces, then only about the "Topols" and "Yars"! But the truth, as always, is in the middle: it is necessary to develop both the navy and the army, because without them it is like without hands, and this must be done without distortions and excesses, the main thing is to ensure the guaranteed defense of the country. And theft must be fought with the most decisive measures.
  44. nikcris
    nikcris 23 December 2013 12: 52
    0
    Quote: sledgehammer102

    I highlighted the sewage system, for the feces pour into the sea - Moviton, but in addition there are many other engineering structures.

    I wonder where they will put them? Really to bring to the mountains?
  45. Hort
    Hort 24 December 2013 07: 31
    0
    Quote: Volkhov
    Quote: kartalovkolya
    The article is correct and timely, but I must note that there are very few concrete facts and it is time to name the "heroes" of the new "Tsushima" of our fleet.

    The heroes of the new Tsushima wear black suits with black ties on occasions and they are clearly visible on TV.
    There is an article about nothing - Tsushima is, there is no fleet and is not necessary at the current level of competence.
    The people have always compensated for the mistakes and sabotage of the authorities - and now, instead of the "fleet" for Tsushima, from the state it is necessary to build a raft for the people independently
    http://sinteh.info/?p=2033
    and preserving the people to biologically develop their brains so that there is a fleet corresponding to the situation and goals of their people ... and not as it is now.

    the site by the way is fierce, picky. laughing