Military Review

In the West, noted the success of the Russian Navy, but doubt their durability

104
Western analysts have noted that the Russian Federation has become much more active in using its fleet, while they are wondering how long the country will be able to develop this success, reports Look with reference to the USNI News portal.




Earlier, Commander-in-Chief of the Navy Viktor Chirkov stated that “in different parts of the World Ocean about 60 ships and submarines of the Navy carry out tasks fleet Russia. "

Erik Wertheim, independent analyst and author of the directory on the fleets of the world, noting the “surprising change” of the Russian fleet over the past few years, said that “such a breakthrough demanded enormous sacrifices from Russia” because “the more the fleet is used, the more experience it gains, the stronger costs of its maintenance increase ».

The publication notes that “the majority of Russian ships were built during the Cold War,” and now they are outdated and in need of repair. According to the author, the proof of this is the fact of launching missile attacks on Syria by new ships of the Caspian flotilla, and not by the old missile carriers in the Mediterranean Sea.

In addition, according to the author, over the past 20 years in Russia "the supply chain, logistics, and maintenance of equipment have atrophied."

Do not forget the publication to mention the difficulties in shipbuilding, which Russia began to experience after the break in relations with Ukraine.

But the success of the submarine fleet, the author is beyond doubt. “While the surface fleet was experiencing problems, the development of nuclear and conventional submarines did not weaken,” he writes, pointing to statements by the command of the US Navy, which periodically expresses concern about the activity of Russian submarines.

“Militarily, Russia is far from being transparent, therefore it is difficult to make assessments,” writes the publication. “Analysts do not rule out that Russia's policy on this issue is aimed not so much at intimidating potential opponents as at working with potential customers.”

However, "the question of how long the Russian fleet will show steady growth remains open," concludes USNI News.
Photos used:
vpk.name
104 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. avvg
    avvg 10 December 2015 17: 01
    24
    DO NOT wait and do not expect !!!
    1. Coconut Tima
      Coconut Tima 10 December 2015 17: 04
      19
      “While the surface fleet was experiencing problems, the development of nuclear and conventional submarines did not weaken”
      And it will not weaken! The Pacific Fleet (Pacific Fleet) of Russia will receive the second strategic nuclear submarine of Project 955 (code "Borey") "Vladimir Monomakh" in 2016, Deputy Commander of the Pacific Fleet Vice Admiral Andrey Ryabukhin told reporters on Tuesday.
      1. _Vladislav_
        _Vladislav_ 10 December 2015 17: 10
        39
        However, "the question of how long the Russian fleet will show steady growth remains open," concludes USNI News.

        Well, their situation with the fleet is about the same. Most of the ships were built during the Cold War and are in need of repair. With the Ohio submarines, it is not at all clear what will happen, there is a prospect that they will stop at the pier and will not sail anywhere.

        Airplanes old B-1, B-2, B-52. There is nothing to replace again.
        In general, this is understandable - after the collapse of the USSR, the Americans relaxed. It seems that there is no one to fight anymore, there are missiles (by the way, the missiles are also old, this is Yars new to us), no one is going to attack them, the masters of the world. But today it turned out that everything is old.
        1. Andrey Yuryevich
          Andrey Yuryevich 10 December 2015 17: 17
          +5
          Quote: _Vladislav_
          Airplanes old B-1, B-2, B-52. There is nothing to replace again.

          they have a bet on the Navy
          Quote: _Vladislav_
          Well, they have a similar situation with the fleet.

          You can bet the destroyers are pretty fresh, and are being built and built, and almost seven dozen is a serious striking force. hi
          1. _Vladislav_
            _Vladislav_ 10 December 2015 17: 19
            +7
            Quote: Andrey Yurievich
            You can bet the destroyers are pretty fresh, and are being built and built, and almost seven dozen is a serious striking force.

            Well, maybe.
            But the strategic nuclear potential of 75% on rusty Ohio, agree. winked )
            1. meriem1
              meriem1 10 December 2015 17: 28
              +4
              Quote: _Vladislav_
              Quote: Andrey Yurievich
              You can bet the destroyers are pretty fresh, and are being built and built, and almost seven dozen is a serious striking force.

              Well, maybe.
              But the strategic nuclear potential of 75% on rusty Ohio, agree. winked )


              And not only this is the case. They always try their shoals and try on failures on us !!! They won't wait. They believed it once. The second will definitely not be. They begin to rock the situation the same way as always! "We are barbarians and we can do nothing." We have eyes! Some have what is good, and some have their hands from where they grow. I will modestly keep silent about the head!
              1. cniza
                cniza 10 December 2015 18: 06
                +4
                While such partners are surrounded by the fleet and the army will develop, and you still do not understand at the expense of what sources and means.
              2. The comment was deleted.
            2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              Andrei from Chelyabinsk 10 December 2015 17: 46
              -4
              Quote: _Vladislav_
              But 75% strategic nuclear potential on rusty Ohio, agree

              I will agree, but there is a nuance - "Ohio" is unattainable for us. So, whether they are rusty or not, they will not seem like a little bit. Although ... again, a nuance - what is the state of their ballistic missiles? It's not new either.
              1. soldatt22
                soldatt22 10 December 2015 18: 19
                +4
                Please enlighten the fool. Why is Ohio out of reach for us?
                1. edge
                  edge 10 December 2015 19: 40
                  0
                  Quote: soldatt22
                  Please enlighten the fool. Why is Ohio out of reach for us?

                  -1 estimate the range of missiles and the speed of approach, -2 we don’t have submarine fighters and the number of missile systems; the conclusion is that we can’t counteract the mass attack from submarine missile carriers and especially the entire triad poison
                  1. Boa kaa
                    Boa kaa 10 December 2015 20: 50
                    +3
                    Quote: hert
                    -we are not able to counteract the mass attack from submarine missile carriers and especially the entire poison of the triad
                    Something of course hammered. But the main trump card is the retaliatory strike of strategic nuclear forces. Amy know about this and are very sad, calculating the consequences on different computer models ...
                    The damage is by no means acceptable for them. And the field of acceptance of the Sarmatians with BB / GZO equipment is generally light carcasses!
                    So they think like a "hero recovering by internal strife" and peripheral conflicts of lime, asps!
                2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                  Andrei from Chelyabinsk 11 December 2015 19: 13
                  +1
                  And how are you going to "reach" them? Just as we can strike with our ballistic missiles almost from the pier, so the Americans do not need to go to our shores for a long time. They have two bases - boats of one patrol in the area between the US coast and Hawaii, boats of the second - in the area of ​​Bermuda. What can we send there? Several submarines? It's not even a needle in a haystack. And you need to understand that the hydrography of the patrolling areas (where Ohio will indeed patrol them, in which case) Americans will know better than their sixth finger, i.e. any outsider will be identified and killed very quickly.
                3. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                  Andrei from Chelyabinsk 11 December 2015 19: 18
                  0
                  And how are you going to "reach" them? Just as we can strike with our ballistic missiles almost from the pier, so the Americans do not need to go to our shores for a long time. They have two bases - boats of one patrol in the area between the US coast and Hawaii, boats of the second - in the area of ​​Bermuda. What can we send there? Several submarines? It's not even a needle in a haystack. And you need to understand that the hydrography of the patrolling areas (where Ohio will indeed patrol them, in which case) Americans will know better than their sixth finger, i.e. any outsider will be identified and killed very quickly.
                4. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                  Andrei from Chelyabinsk 11 December 2015 19: 20
                  +1
                  And how are you going to "reach" them? Just as we can strike with our ballistic missiles almost from the pier, so the Americans do not need to go to our shores for a long time. They have two bases - boats of one patrol in the area between the US coast and Hawaii, boats of the second - in the area of ​​Bermuda. What can we send there? Several submarines? It's not even a needle in a haystack. And you need to understand that the hydrography of the patrolling areas (where Ohio will indeed patrol them, in which case) Americans will know better than their sixth finger, i.e. any outsider will be identified and killed very quickly.
            3. The comment was deleted.
            4. Vorobey-1
              Vorobey-1 10 December 2015 17: 56
              +2
              while they wonder how long the country will be able to develop this success

              do not worry, "partners", while you exist - you definitely have enough strength! angry
            5. edge
              edge 10 December 2015 19: 35
              +1
              Quote: _Vladislav_
              But 75% strategic nuclear potential on rusty Ohio

              also controversial, it’s enough to shoot from neutral waters, and if it will be massive ....
            6. Boa kaa
              Boa kaa 10 December 2015 21: 56
              +3
              Quote: _Vladislav_
              But the strategic nuclear potential of 75% on rusty Ohio, agree.
              Not quite.

              The US Department of Defense under the Treaty on Measures to Further Reduce and Limit Strategic Offensive Arms (the new START) by February 5, 2018 will drastically reduce the number of nuclear weapons in submarines and strategic bombers.
              50 active ICBMs of Minuteman III will be removed from combat duty, which will reduce the number of deployed ICBMs to 400 units. At the same time, 50 free silo launchers are supposed to be kept in working condition. Together with four test launchers, the Pentagon will have 54 of them in reserve. As for the missiles themselves, they will be sent to the warehouse,
              The United States will also reduce the number of deployed ballistic missiles in submarines (SLBMs) ​​by 40 units - to 240. Of the 14 nuclear submarines (SSBNs) in the USA, 336 launchers for SLBM launches remain 280. At the same time, 56 launchers on SSBN will be refitted so that they cannot be used to launch ballistic missiles. As a result, the United States will have 12 SSBNs in operation with 20 SLBMs on each submarine.
          2. i80186
            i80186 10 December 2015 17: 30
            13
            Quote: Andrey Yurievich
            You can bet the destroyers are pretty fresh, and are being built and built, and almost seven dozen is a serious striking force.

            Well, if you remember about the modification of "Calibers" in a standard sea container. What if such containers really float everywhere? Here I see five dozen calibers right here on it. laughing
            You won’t even sink this one especially.
            1. unsinkable
              unsinkable 10 December 2015 17: 40
              +5
              Quote: i80186
              I see five dozen calibers here on it.

              There I still see a dozen over the wheelhouse. And two on the right. It seems to be all. hi yes
            2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              Andrei from Chelyabinsk 10 December 2015 17: 49
              +3
              Quote: i80186
              Well, if you remember about the modification of "Calibers" in a standard sea container

              No need for containers :)) You see, a ship that is not a warship but carries weapons (we don’t take hand-held weapons for self-defense from pirates) is, by maritime law, pirated and subject to immediate exterminatus. So no one sticks any calibers anywhere. It is just not necessary.
              1. i80186
                i80186 10 December 2015 18: 10
                +3
                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                No need for containers :)) You see, a ship that is not a warship but carries weapons (we don’t take hand-held weapons for self-defense from pirates) is, by maritime law, pirated and subject to immediate exterminatus. So no one sticks any calibers anywhere. It is just not necessary.

                That is, does a ship carrying for example PU missiles for sale need to be drowned? winked
                Again, if they are in containers, you need to know. smile
                Even here I read went. Well, there are no such restrictions, especially in case of war. Here's what they say about piracy.
                Under international law, piracy is an international crime of unlawful seizure, robbery or sinking of merchant or civilian ships committed on the high seas. An attack during the war by ships, submarines and military aircraft on merchant ships of neutral countries is equivalent to piracy. Pirate ships, aircraft and their crews should not be protected by any state. Regardless of the flag, pirate ships can be hijacked by ships or aircraft that are in the service of a country and are authorized for this purpose.(C)
              2. edge
                edge 10 December 2015 19: 45
                0
                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                So no one sticks any calibers anywhere. It is just not necessary.

                container installations are a deterrent weapon for poor countries ....
              3. Scraptor
                Scraptor 12 December 2015 13: 39
                0
                Already do not need containers? laughing So that the ship is not pirated but becomes a ship, a naval flag is hung on it.
                Like the same Atlantic Causeway with containers ...
            3. The comment was deleted.
            4. fedor13
              fedor13 10 December 2015 18: 07
              +2
              Need your own container carriers or better to say container carriers for such purposes
          3. prostofily
            prostofily 10 December 2015 18: 04
            0
            Well, and that these destroyers against the mainland are actually Russia. We don’t even need to go, they themselves will sail.
          4. edge
            edge 10 December 2015 19: 33
            +1
            Quote: Andrey Yurievich
            Airplanes old B-1, B-2, B-52.

            about b-2, b-1 you can argue, they are contemporaries of our carcasses. b-52 can easily be upgraded to missile carriers (all the more so there are enough) they don’t need to break through the air defense zone.
          5. bif
            bif 10 December 2015 23: 31
            0
            Quote: Andrey Yurievich
            you can bet the destroyers are pretty fresh, and are being built and built, and almost seven dozen is a serious striking force

            Considering that they are "smeared with a thin layer" over hundreds of bases around the world, then this is a drop in the ocean.
        2. edge
          edge 10 December 2015 19: 28
          0
          Quote: _Vladislav_
          Well, they have a similar situation with the fleet.

          here we need to look a little further: they simply analyze the state of our all (we saw the quality of military equipment), they know the qualities of a Russian soldier, now they are studying the quality of the defense and the state’s ability to withstand prolonged intense hostilities, and only after that decisions will be made (but it’s clear what about ... to bench press)
          1. Boa kaa
            Boa kaa 10 December 2015 22: 36
            +1
            Quote: hert
            they are now studying the quality of the defense and the ability of the state to withstand prolonged intense hostilities,
            No need to project WWII to the present.
            The enemy's industrial base is an object of "deep concern" for the enemy's strategic nuclear forces. After RNU, production will be possible only at underground enterprises (special workshops of the largest factories underground in accordance with the plans for deployment).
            Then, energy is the Achilles heel of production. NPPs and K * are the primary objects of impact ... Somehow, one can hardly believe that without them the machines will spin!
            Well, and so on.
      2. Reserve officer
        Reserve officer 10 December 2015 17: 15
        +4
        "Militarily, Russia is far from transparency"

        That's it. And how do you like, gentlemen, adversaries?
        Therefore, the conclusions of any "analysts" are far from the truth.
    2. trenitron
      trenitron 10 December 2015 17: 07
      +1
      Quote: avvg
      DO NOT wait and do not expect !!!

      While there are such "partners"
    3. Denis Obukhov
      Denis Obukhov 10 December 2015 17: 12
      10
      Analysts, noting the "obsolescence" of the Russian fleet, are unable to assess the logistics problems. It is one thing to shoot from RTOs and missile boats from the shallow and friendly Caspian Sea, where one night is crossing from Makhachkala. Quite different is the Mediterranean Sea, where rockets for reloading need to be dragged past Turkey or around. You can, of course, ask Dolgoruky not for the test site, but for Syria from the north. But I think everyone around will be very surprised.
      1. svd-xnumx
        svd-xnumx 10 December 2015 19: 23
        +1
        Analysts, noting the "obsolescence" of the Russian fleet, are unable to assess the logistics problems. It is one thing to shoot from RTOs and missile boats from the shallow and friendly Caspian Sea, where one night is crossing from Makhachkala. Quite different is the Mediterranean Sea, where rockets for reloading need to be dragged past Turkey or around.
        From the Mediterranean Sea along the "coast" only "Rostov-on-Don" can "work" with rockets, and if a person considers himself an expert he should know about it. I do not think that from a submarine it is possible to "bullet" missiles through a torpedo tube as they say "as from a machine gun. "You can, of course, with the" Moscow "" Volcano "with a nuclear filling, but it will only be in case of a big mess.
      2. Boa kaa
        Boa kaa 10 December 2015 22: 51
        +2
        Quote: Denis Obukhov
        The Mediterranean Sea is completely different, where missiles for reloading need to be dragged past Turkey or around.
        Are you talking about peacetime or database maintenance? The world is still back and forth. And in the war ... After 45 minutes of the battle, you can no longer rush anywhere. There will be no one to recharge. Only boats that have not been tracked by the time the database began will remain operational. But they will also be harassed, like inveterate raids. In the Mediterranean, nothing shines for us yet. And this is a harsh reality that is well known to the management and sailors of the OS.
      3. Kibalchish
        Kibalchish 11 December 2015 09: 15
        0
        Dolgoruky is, of course, a strong name for the nuclear submarine ... With some subtext wink
    4. Andrey Yuryevich
      Andrey Yuryevich 10 December 2015 17: 14
      +2
      USNI News portal, of course, exaggerating, BUT there are many problems, and this is a fact, and the time to resolve them is not the best ...
    5. bubalik
      bubalik 10 December 2015 17: 14
      +1

      avvg RU  Today, 17: 01
      DO NOT wait and do not expect !!!


      “Militarily, Russia is far from transparency, so it’s difficult to give estimates
      ...
      that's what they told you lol ,,, "caliber" flies only 300 km ,,, repeat
    6. The comment was deleted.
    7. 79807420129
      79807420129 10 December 2015 17: 16
      +8
      Quote: avvg
      DO NOT wait and do not expect !!!

      When Russia was weak after the devastation of the 90s, then the same experts said that now all Russians will not be able to rise anymore, but on 7,10,2015 the same experts, departing from the shock, begin to mutter that all this is not for long, even if they do not hope , who knows what else we have in the zagashnik. Let these borozapisets once more than once get shocked from their eyes.
    8. hydrox
      hydrox 10 December 2015 17: 20
      +2
      The author, of course, talked, but it can be understood: THE WHOLE Western world does not know the pace of rearmament of the Armed Forces, which Russia demonstrates today, although our military budget is ten times smaller than the total military budgets of the collective West.
      They can only boast of the destroyer leader Sumvolt "(this is the only ship designed in the 21st century) and then we still need to see how it will withstand two pairs of Calibers - I have a big doubt that he will not sink (and the goal is good, big ), however, I think that shells stuffed with shimosa, fired from the guns of the cruisers Ikoma or Kasuga in 1906, will gladly penetrate its interdeck space.

      So, guys, we’ll hear enough of this whining yet oh yes how much both from our enemies and from the liberals
      1. Penetrator
        Penetrator 10 December 2015 17: 53
        +5
        Quote: hydrox
        They can only boast of the destroyer leader Zumvolt "

        And the F-35, which has already gone into production? About "Raptors" generally keep quiet. Or strike UAVs, the analogues of which we have only in the project? Yes, they have a lot of other interesting things, except for "Zamvolta". Do not underestimate a potential enemy. For it is fraught.
        1. Wolka
          Wolka 11 December 2015 07: 01
          -1
          dear, well, don’t bother with the client, and everything is going according to plan, everything is within the framework of an arithmetic error, something is with them, something is with us, you don’t need to escalate the negative
      2. Stirbjorn
        Stirbjorn 10 December 2015 22: 03
        +2
        Quote: hydrox
        They can only boast of the destroyer leader Zumvolt "(this is the only ship designed in the 21st century)

        You bend something. The Japanese are building destroyers one after another, and two British aircraft carriers are soon going into operation. We from the surface "Gorshkov" still cannot accept, what nafig rates of rearmament ?!
    9. yuriy55
      yuriy55 10 December 2015 17: 23
      +1
      Quote: avvg
      DO NOT wait and do not expect !!!


      Like this? Let them hope, if they "beg" for a long time, then they will wait.
    10. Atrix
      Atrix 10 December 2015 17: 37
      +2
      Well, the author can agree in most positions. There are practically no new surface ships of the far sea zone and ocean class. Old ships are morally obsolete and physically. The speed of construction of the marine zone leaves much to be desired, and when ships of large displacement appear. Things are less or less better with the submarine fleet, although without cover, the surface fleet also remains vulnerable. Of course, the author is right about the logistics component, there are no naval bases abroad, there are no modern transport ships.
    11. 222222
      222222 10 December 2015 17: 54
      0
      Vladimir Putin will take part in an expanded board of the Russian Defense Ministry on December 11
      DECEMBER 10 15:35

      Russian President Vladimir Putin will take part in the annual expanded board of the Russian Ministry of Defense on December 11, the Kremlin’s press service reports.

      The President of Russia will determine the main tasks in the field of military construction and in the activities of the military department for the coming year.

      Members of the Security Council, the leadership of the Federal Assembly, governments and commanders of the military districts, associations and formations of the Russian Armed Forces are also invited to the meeting.
    12. Vend
      Vend 10 December 2015 18: 00
      0
      Quote: avvg
      DO NOT wait and do not expect !!!

      They then doubted the effectiveness of Russian strikes, then that Russia would be able to conduct military operations for a long time, and now the durability of the results. I think it's time for gentlemen to doubt their own analytical thinking. So it will be more correct. laughing
    13. zennon
      zennon 10 December 2015 18: 14
      +3
      Quote: avvg
      DO NOT wait and do not expect !!!

      Why? Oil $ 40, per barrel. The country's GDP is declining. The forecasts are not comforting.
      PPP of Russia:
      Russia's GDP for 2013 in US dollars = $ 3492 billion
      Russia's GDP for 2014 in US dollars = $ 3570 billion
      Russia's GDP for 2015 in US dollars = $ 3398 billion

      PPP is purchasing power parity. See the difference? I want to clarify my position right away. If there are people on the forum who want the prosperity of Russia and strengthen the strength of the armed forces, I’m in the forefront! But the article is honest. The successes in strengthening the armed forces are significant and timely. However, they a really heavy burden will lie on the shoulders of the country. This does not mean that we need to reduce efforts to improve the army. This means that we need reforms in the economy like air. To increase labor productivity, real fight against corruption, diversification of production, modernization of industry.
    14. The comment was deleted.
    15. yushch
      yushch 10 December 2015 20: 39
      0
      Yes, yes we know ... on feet of clay. But where are all those wise men who dared to test it ???
      In general, it looks more like an auto-training of our sworn friends who want to convince themselves of this.
    16. Altona
      Altona 10 December 2015 23: 31
      0
      Quote: avvg
      DO NOT wait and do not expect !!!

      -----------------
      When a Western military analyst does not find anything reassuring in the form of facts, he is engaged in complacency and belittling obvious facts ...
  2. Dezinto
    Dezinto 10 December 2015 17: 01
    +8
    Until Russia began to work in Syria ... the West wrote that in our exercises there were two real tanks, and three hundred plastic ... (well, exaggerating) They wrote that everything was lost, sawed, a mess, a mess, and all this is "muscle play".

    Now seeing the muscles that are, a new song began.
    1. kil 31
      kil 31 10 December 2015 17: 08
      +2
      “Most of the Russian ships were built during the Cold War,” and now they are outdated and in need of repair. According to the author, the proof of this is the fact of missile attacks on Syria with new ships of the Caspian flotilla, and not with old missile carriers located in the Mediterranean Sea.
      Stupidity about new ones. New stuff your hand. This is for you both tests and experience. Now they will work gain experience, then professionals will also work.
    2. The comment was deleted.
    3. hydrox
      hydrox 10 December 2015 17: 40
      0
      Quote: DEZINTO
      Now seeing the muscles that are, a new song began.


      This is not a new song, it is a reflection of the hysteria that befell our enemies from what they saw in nature EXCELLENCE in those types of weapons that they themselves used to use in such actions.
      Just think, we throw ordinary FABs from a height of 5 km from the KVO, just 2 times worse than their "high-precision" and "guided" ammunition costing 300-400 times more (plus the cost of guidance equipment!) - there is no power The military-industrial complex will not be enough to compensate for even ONE day of such a bombing, and they consider them ONE PIECE!
  3. Denis Obukhov
    Denis Obukhov 10 December 2015 17: 02
    +1
    The West should order more heart and sedative drugs: Russia is not going to stop there. Our military forces and their strength will only grow and grow - not at the expense of LIVING force, but at the expense of the latest aircraft, tanks, missile launchers, not only the near , but also so long-range that they are capable of hitting targets not only at a distance from the Caspian Sea to Syria, but also from the Caspian Sea or ... the Black Sea to ... let's just say - to a country that once turned from a colony into a metropolis ) And it’s not worth it to anyone to doubt it and try to check: there will be an answer, but those who try to make such a check will not see it, will not hear and will not feel it - there is simply nothing and no one to do it. and check how the owner of the forest feels in his house: the one who puts his hand in the den risks losing his head)
  4. Air Force captain
    Air Force captain 10 December 2015 17: 06
    +1
    Toli still buuudet ... felts still buuudet ... felts still be oh-oh-oh-oh
  5. Gormenghast
    Gormenghast 10 December 2015 17: 07
    0
    Quote: DEZINTO
    three hundred plastic


    inflatable. laughing And the ensigns are drunk, and draftees are dystrophically tortured, and communications are made by bonfires and flags, and planes are rusty, and ships are full of holes, and all without exception the Armed Forces of Russia for democracy, for the swamps and against Putin.

    In general, it resembles an obscene slap below the back.

    Amerians constantly: "The Navy / Air Force / Strategic Rocket Forces / Submarine / Armed Forces have intensified but to us / to NATO / to NATO standards like far"
    1. Dezinto
      Dezinto 10 December 2015 17: 21
      +2
      hi

      Nothing like that to the bearded men in Syria for a thousand kilometers shot, rusty rockets, the drunk commander of a half-rotten missile cruiser. And our rusty planes and untrained pilots will iron terrorists for the third month.

      That fso. Let them write what they want. They have tikhikhad there in the center of France ... and they are afraid of all of Russia. for ... ly. They think the United States will come to save everyone? Well, jeros-two. Let them honor the story. USA again sit out and earn while Europe is in ruins! That is why, for the sake of falling under them again!
  6. Dmitry Potapov
    Dmitry Potapov 10 December 2015 17: 07
    0
    Does this ram expert know that "old missile carriers" carry nuclear missiles?
  7. Stiletto
    Stiletto 10 December 2015 17: 07
    0
    I want to tell the author one thing: you, uncle, watch your fleet better. But if you don’t keep track, then we’ll deal with it. And let's see who is "outdated" and who is still nothing.
  8. NEXUS
    NEXUS 10 December 2015 17: 08
    +2
    The use of high-precision weapons, the same missile defense systems, the attraction of warships and submarines, and so on, all of this is of course expensive. Apparently, like their president, US analysts believe that the Russian economy is "torn to shreds," and therefore doubt the longevity of these successes.
    But on the other hand, what kind of advertisement for Russian weapons, and the political effect of the actions of both the Navy and the Russian Aerospace Forces. Besides, "cheap" wars simply do not exist by definition.
    1. voyaka uh
      voyaka uh 10 December 2015 17: 16
      +1
      ". US analysts, apparently, like their president, believe that the Russian economy is" torn to shreds "////

      US analysts are looking primarily at the country's finances. Such a habit among the capitalists. request
      How much money is there for the production of ships and the maintenance of the fleet, including its ammunition?
      1. 2s1122
        2s1122 10 December 2015 17: 30
        +1
        Well, if you stop using the US dollar in international payments, then the economy in America is also not in the first place.
        Only in a month the amount equal to the budget of such a state as California runs, and this is only a percentage.
        1. voyaka uh
          voyaka uh 10 December 2015 17: 52
          -2
          "Only in a month the amount accumulates" ////

          The large debt of the US government to its Central Bank account.
          US economic rating downgraded from AAA to AA +.
      2. MIKHALYCH1
        MIKHALYCH1 10 December 2015 17: 44
        0
        Quote: voyaka uh
        How much money is there for the production of ships and the maintenance of the fleet, including its ammunition?

        Don’t worry, Russia will have enough money for this! Taught by bitter experience in the 90s ....
      3. Anisim1977
        Anisim1977 10 December 2015 17: 50
        +3
        "How much money is there for the production of ships and the maintenance of the fleet, including its ammunition?"
        Considering that the basis of our defense industry is state-owned, and that of Americans is private, then you need to consider the cost and not the cost. We have a margin of money to issue at cost.
        In the price of fuel, we also have about 3/4 of this tax, only we have oil falling and gasoline increasing.
        So it’s from taxes - therefore, swimming and flying is just as inexpensive.
        We bomb mainly with old stocks - disposal in factories would be more expensive.
        All that we are fighting (except for TU22 M, 95,160) - we also sell (with more modest characteristics), you must admit - the advertising is powerful and I am sure that the profile plants are inundated with orders, I cannot at all.
        Therefore, the main problem is to quickly increase the production of military equipment, but this, in turn, helps to increase GDP and improve unemployment rates.
        Therefore, everything will be fine.
        1. voyaka uh
          voyaka uh 10 December 2015 18: 00
          +1
          for Anisim1977:
          "Therefore, the main problem is to rapidly increase the production of military equipment,
          but this in turn helps to increase GDP and improve unemployment rates. "////

          World practice has repeatedly shown that for a long time it has not been possible to go to the military-industrial complex. Only
          as a temporary tactical measure.
          This I say, as a resident of a highly militarized economy
          and huge military spending.
          If it weren’t for a strong civilian economy, Israel would have long flown out
          into the pipe with such a military budget. And America’s help would not save ...
      4. Mountain shooter
        Mountain shooter 10 December 2015 18: 06
        +4
        So the whole point is that, if necessary, Russia will produce weapons, as during the Second World War - for a ration. How much did 34 times of war cost? Roughly speaking - a bag of loaves of bread. Money did not matter at all - you had to survive. And we shouldn't wake up our genetic memory. This is the first thing. And the second thing. The favorite hobby of our economy is to hide the real costs of the defense industry. And the real cost of weapons and equipment. And to provide the "partners" with true figures - not only performance characteristics, but also costs.
        1. voyaka uh
          voyaka uh 10 December 2015 18: 28
          +2
          The cost of production of the T-34 during the war was (depending
          from the plant and the war period) from 150,000 to 500,000 rubles.
          And not at all a "bag of loaves of bread".
          During the war (even total) the laws of economics are nowhere
          do not disappear.
          1. Alekseev-Orsk
            Alekseev-Orsk 10 December 2015 23: 45
            0
            Yes, my friend you wrote nonsense, the T-72 was under the lam, Soviet wooden rubles. And Stalin's money is completely different. Dad could not give the collective farmer to give his sons t-34, if it cost 500 thousand. Stalinist.
        2. voyaka uh
          voyaka uh 10 December 2015 18: 52
          -1
          for Mountain Shooter:

          The forums were not too lazy to make recounts
          tank production costs in dollars of that time.
          It cost (approximately) $ 34 to make a T-30,000, $ 33,000 to Sherman,
          T-4 - 40,000, Tiger - 60,000, Panther - 85,000 dollars.
          As you can see, despite the large difference in salaries in the USSR and the USA
          the cost of production of the T-34 and Sherman was almost the same.
          1. MIKHALYCH1
            MIKHALYCH1 10 December 2015 19: 46
            0
            Enough is enough Alex .. laughing You know how to count money in Israel, there are no words, but you also have to select specialists too! Can we spend them ourselves, somehow, without advice? bully
          2. Boa kaa
            Boa kaa 11 December 2015 00: 00
            +1
            Quote: voyaka uh
            the cost of production of the T-34 and Sherman was almost the same.

            Lesh, maybe so.
            But here's the bad luck: the use value was different! I'm talking about the performance characteristics and combat capabilities of the T-34 and "Shaurman". Carbureted gasoline engine: the tank burned like a match when hit by a shell ... Narrow tracks, frail spring suspension, high silhouette, gasoline aircraft engine, 5 crew members ... The American was very "painted".
            My grandfather, a veteran of the Great Patriotic War, always spit at the remembrance of the M4.
  9. iouris
    iouris 10 December 2015 17: 10
    0
    What if North Korea had the same fleet and two hydrogen bombs?
  10. The comment was deleted.
  11. Circuit breaker
    Circuit breaker 10 December 2015 17: 11
    +1
    With such partners, we will constantly develop success. am
  12. Urals
    Urals 10 December 2015 17: 12
    +1
    And what old missile carriers are we talking about in the Mediterranean? For what purposes should Moscow work in Syria? The author-analyst has problems with materiel.
  13. BARKHAN
    BARKHAN 10 December 2015 17: 12
    +3
    How many more "wonderful discoveries" they will have ...
    On the one hand, he seemed to praise him, but he immediately piled on a bunch ...
    Analystics they are ... To look cleaner you do not have to wash, the main thing is to fool others.
  14. Gomel
    Gomel 10 December 2015 17: 13
    +2
    It’s funny ... Before Syria, they just didn’t write about the Army ... and now stuzza
    1. rasputin17
      rasputin17 10 December 2015 17: 29
      0
      Such is their plan !!! Glad to gobble up and fear that they will not only choke, but will die by digesting themselves! hi
  15. Roman 25
    Roman 25 10 December 2015 17: 14
    +3
    "Over the past 20 years in Russia, the supply system, logistics, maintenance of equipment have atrophied."
    Yes, you worked on this for a long time ... and how much you jumped for joy when everything was so! Their chagrin is clear that the work of so many comrades under the leadership of Comrade Brzezinski must again be revived ...
    And they were hollowing from the Caspian not for the reason that there are old missile carriers in the Mediterranean Sea, but for surprise, in the SM you would have to report the use of our Navy - which would definitely be a reason for you to warn the "moderate opposition". Well, show how we can ... repeat
  16. Engineer engineer
    Engineer engineer 10 December 2015 17: 19
    +2
    Quote: bubalik
    , "caliber" flies only 300 km ,,,

    Yeah! And only in a straight line! wink
    And the fact that from the Caspian Sea, but through 2 states is much more "convincing", he did not think?
  17. rasputin17
    rasputin17 10 December 2015 17: 25
    0
    However, "the question of how long the Russian fleet will show steady growth remains open," concludes USNI News.

    The answer is clear !! IS ALWAYS!! Not for this, Peter the Great and Catherine chopped windows into the waters of the oceans and stood on it bridgeheads! soldier They will also show you Kuzkin’s mother and where the crayfish hibernate !! hi Enjoy this is just the beginning!
  18. dmitrymb
    dmitrymb 10 December 2015 17: 25
    +1
    all the Americans have sailed, start the production of new printed $ tanks, the old ones can’t cope, and then the arms race in a new way, if you don’t overwhelm you
  19. Uran
    Uran 10 December 2015 17: 25
    -2
    Well, the author is right somewhere! but it is a matter of time.
  20. yuriy55
    yuriy55 10 December 2015 17: 27
    +1
    I like this story:
  21. solovey
    solovey 10 December 2015 17: 31
    -5
    the question is incorrectly posed! It should be asked like this - How long will NATO last two days or one?
  22. dchegrinec
    dchegrinec 10 December 2015 17: 35
    +1
    It seems that Russia must constantly persuade someone in anything! The answer is: yes what for you generally need! We are doing everything exclusively to maintain our safety and the security of our allies! And we have already achieved this, despite any homegrown Western guesses and stupid analytics.
  23. Alexandr2637
    Alexandr2637 10 December 2015 17: 46
    0
    According to the author, the proof of this is the fact of missile attacks on Syria with new ships of the Caspian flotilla, and not with old missile carriers located in the Mediterranean Sea.

    Well, "someone" is swimming with nuclear missiles ... But they "for whom it is necessary" are in store :)
  24. BOB044
    BOB044 10 December 2015 17: 49
    0
    Uncle the author will die of hunger until he waits. That the Russian fleet would weaken. Since the time of Peter they have been waiting and will not wait for the weakening of our fleet.
    1. padded jacket
      padded jacket 10 December 2015 17: 58
      +1
      While we can’t produce our own gas turbine units for large displacement ships, we must devote all our efforts and resources to producing small missile ships with long-range missile systems and submarines for various purposes, this is now the only way to maintain our fleet in good condition.

      1. Stirbjorn
        Stirbjorn 10 December 2015 22: 06
        0
        Quote: quilted jacket
        submarines for various purposes

        So they are being built with might and main. It's just that you cannot build the same atomic one in a couple of years. By 2018, like the next Ash promise hi
        1. padded jacket
          padded jacket 11 December 2015 17: 30
          0
          Quote: Stirbjorn
          So they are being built with might and main. It's just that you cannot build the same atomic one in a couple of years.

          I understand this very well, I mean that money and shipyards that cannot produce large surface ships now should not be idle, but they must be urgently loaded with orders for small displacement ships up to boats for various purposes and submarines.
  25. EDDI 76
    EDDI 76 10 December 2015 17: 54
    0
    success will be and they will be huge, if any NATO shell will not interfere underfoot
  26. AIR-ZNAK
    AIR-ZNAK 10 December 2015 17: 55
    +1
    Better underestimate than overestimate
    1. Boa kaa
      Boa kaa 11 December 2015 00: 25
      +1
      Quote: AIR-ZNAK
      Better underestimate than overestimate
      You know, a stick is a double-edged sword.
      When Hitler was informed how many tanks the USSR had, he replied that if he had known about this before, he would not have attacked us.
      So, if the "partners" turn up their noses a lot, then we lift the canopy and show them "what we hold in our bosom." Hence their hysteria and screams ...
  27. moskowit
    moskowit 10 December 2015 17: 57
    0
    What does lasting success mean? Let's see how Ozhegov interprets it.

    "SUCCESS, -a, m. 1. Luck in achieving something. To achieve success. To develop y. (Maintain high rates of advance; also transfer.). 2. Public recognition. Noisy y. Performance. The book has y. 3. mm. Good results in work, study. Good, bad successes. Successes in music. Production successes. * Successfully - easily, successfully, without difficulty. Successfully complete the assignment. To use success - to be popular, to arouse interest. same success (more ironic.) - just the same, not at all better. I did not cope with the assignment, the tribute is different - estimate the same success. How are your successes? - how am I going] grandfather? to occupy the entire surface with something. U. bookshelf. * To set eyes (gaze, gaze) at someone what, into what - to stop a motionless gaze at someone with something. To set your gaze into space. || it is not good.

    In this regard, we should not talk about "long-term success", but about a systematic system that is successfully developing on the basis of a set of technical achievements, the growth of professional skill of the groups of people who ensure these achievements, the growth of the military skill of people who manage these achievements and the providence of people who calculate for years to come. the prospect of the viability of these achievements ...
  28. individual
    individual 10 December 2015 18: 00
    +2
    Years of confusion and reeling have passed.
    Russia worthily returns to the world stage and big politics.
    The main thing is to prevent Gaidarism and Chubaisism from coming to power.
  29. Oleg Lavrov
    Oleg Lavrov 10 December 2015 18: 02
    0
    Longevity will be ensured by the purchase of our weapons from the military-industrial complex of the Russian Federation! Already now, after such vivid demonstrations of power, the line for the purchase of weapons of the Russian Federation is growing ... the amount of contracts concluded is also growing !! Here you have longevity, gentlemen!
  30. prorab_ak
    prorab_ak 10 December 2015 18: 05
    -2
    Quote: _Vladislav_
    However, "the question of how long the Russian fleet will show steady growth remains open," concludes USNI News.

    Well, their situation with the fleet is about the same. Most of the ships were built during the Cold War and are in need of repair. With the Ohio submarines, it is not at all clear what will happen, there is a prospect that they will stop at the pier and will not sail anywhere.

    Airplanes old B-1, B-2, B-52. There is nothing to replace again.
    In general, this is understandable - after the collapse of the USSR, the Americans relaxed. It seems that there is no one to fight anymore, there are missiles (by the way, the missiles are also old, this is Yars new to us), no one is going to attack them, the masters of the world. But today it turned out that everything is old.

    Bueeeee .... laughing ..... excellent analytical review from the next hunter to the stars on uniform fellow
    Dear friend, do you at least read the articles of the respected Bongo or Oleg Kaptsov .... before giving out a similar ..... "analytics" in the comments ... threw an earflaps into the air three times? wassat
  31. Sergey Vladimirovich
    Sergey Vladimirovich 10 December 2015 18: 18
    +1
    “Militarily, Russia is far from transparency ...


    Gentlemen obviously will not die of modesty! .. Make the military area transparent to them ... Let them steer, let them beep ... wassat
  32. pofigisst74
    pofigisst74 10 December 2015 18: 28
    0
    Well, let them doubt it. The stronger the surprise will be! fellow
  33. chunga-changa
    chunga-changa 10 December 2015 18: 30
    +2
    The rearmament program was adopted. They began to actively exploit the "Soviet legacy" based on it. But it, through the fault of Rogozin, was torn off and shifted about 2-3 years to the right. Therefore, most likely in the next year or two, the intensity of campaigns will be reduced, or the repair of some ships will be postponed. Then everything will be restored, and with the repair of the Eagles and the commissioning of three 11356s it may even increase.
    The bottom has now been reached with the nuclear submarines, only further up. Now in our sea at the same time from zero to one missile carrier and one, sometimes two, torpedo nuclear submarines are simultaneously located. With the launch of new nuclear submarines and the repair of the old ones, in about five years, it may be at sea at the same time - two missile carriers, two torpedo tubes and one with cruise missiles.
    The Americans and NATO have about 15 "rusty" nuclear submarines at sea at the same time, with the possibility of building up.
    1. Stirbjorn
      Stirbjorn 10 December 2015 22: 13
      +3
      That's for sure. All terms for warships and nuclear powered ships go hopelessly to the right. They promised two 11356 this year, it is already clear that only next. I am silent about the unfortunate Gren. This year we have two Varshavyankas, two Buyans, God forbid, Gorshkov will finally be accepted, and all of them are from combat. Well, the scout "Ivanov", the researcher "Yantar", the transport "Kovalev". Here is all the replenishment, in fact, for this year. I don't know what complaints there are about the article ... Rogozin only tweet master
  34. From Samara
    From Samara 10 December 2015 18: 32
    +1
    Russia urgently needs ships of the Mistral type!
  35. From Samara
    From Samara 10 December 2015 18: 33
    0
    Russia urgently needs ships of the Mistral type!
  36. tinibar
    tinibar 10 December 2015 18: 59
    +1
    Quote: avvg
    DO NOT wait and do not expect !!!

    What they are right about is that in the USSR and Russia the main force of the fleet was submarines. And the fact that today not everything that relates to the armed forces is accessible information. For example, not much is heard about the Project 971 boats, which were the backbone of the Navy. And they are quite young and perfect, and I don’t think that they wrote them down ... And once someone said that while Russia has at least 2-3 such boats, any movement of enemy ships in the ocean is akin to moving around a mine to the field ...
  37. 1536
    1536 10 December 2015 19: 16
    0
    A German will never decipher the phrase "We'll drink everything, but we won't abandon the fleet!" Therefore, it is better for them not to guess and not know how much of whom and what we have enough. The end will be the same, but still, "we will take prisoners at the Brandenburg Gate."
    1. Boa kaa
      Boa kaa 11 December 2015 00: 38
      +1
      Quote: 1536
      "We'll drink everything, but we won't abandon the fleet!"

      Respected! Classics of the genre need to be quoted for sure! Namely:
      "WE WILL DRINK EVERYTHING, BUT THE FLEET WILL NOT DISARM!" drinks
  38. lopvlad
    lopvlad 10 December 2015 19: 31
    0
    At the same time, the publication notes that “most Russian ships were built during the Cold War”

    and what about the new fleet of the navy? The bulk of the American Navy was built before the 90s and in the early 90s.

    “While the surface fleet was experiencing problems, the development of nuclear and conventional submarines did not weaken”

    The problem of the surface fleet is that the production of engines and the backbone of the shipyards where the surface fleet was built for the USSR ended up outside Russia in the "independent countries" after the collapse of the USSR. There were no such problems with the submarine fleet.
  39. SMikhalych
    SMikhalych 10 December 2015 19: 40
    +1
    And notice how their rhetoric changes over time:
    - in the beginning there was their "hee-hee" about only 300-400 km at the "Caliber". Well, yes, the export version ...
    - after a salvo from different points they wondered

    - And now they are trying to find out how long the country can develop success?
    The answers, in due time, were given by German Chancellor Otto von Bismarck. Read, gentlemen ignoramuses, read .... hi
  40. sergant1.1
    sergant1.1 10 December 2015 20: 54
    -1
    BETTER WOULD FOLLOW YOUR WASTE, HUGE CARRIERS. STRATEGIES.
  41. bmv04636
    bmv04636 10 December 2015 21: 47
    0
    Turbine of the frigate Yaroslav the Wise Photo: PG Novik OJSC
    The basis of the combat structure of the Russian surface fleet is ships with gas turbine power plants of Ukrainian production. Import substitution in this area has become a guarantee of national security - without repair of turbines, the fleet will not be able to carry out its tasks in an increasingly conflicting world.
    The Novik industrial group has mastered the repair of ship gas turbine engines
    something like
  42. Nehist
    Nehist 10 December 2015 23: 32
    +2
    I read komenty and was horrified, a few sensible ones and all the rest was cheers, we will throw our caps. Our fleet, alas, is in a deplorable state. Local successes, unfortunately, are not indicators. The rearmament program has been thwarted clean and what is now standing at the shipyards without power plants will become obsolete by the time it is put into operation. And in general, the whole situation reminds me of the 40th year with the slogans of the Red Army all stronger and so on.
    1. Garris199
      Garris199 11 December 2015 03: 47
      0
      Quote: Nehist
      Our fleet, alas, is in a deplorable state.

      Yes, especially with surface ships of rank 1-2 there are problems, but in general, everything is not so sad. In the ranks of the three newest "Boreas" with gifts (this is already a serious application, it is not easy to find these ships) there are 7-8 nuclear submarines 971 of the project - these are very good and powerful ships. There is also a couple 671rtmk, "loaves" 949A, lonely and beautiful "ash" finally. Again, the new "calibrated" corvettes and Warsaw women should also be considered. In general, there is something to bite, the main thing is to increase the pace.
  43. Skifotavr
    Skifotavr 11 December 2015 00: 13
    0
    U.S. Navy command not expressing concern is like the U.S. Department of State not expressing concern laughing
  44. looker-on
    looker-on 11 December 2015 01: 10
    0
    The activity of the army and navy will be long enough, and ordinary people will pay for it. Population of Russia. Many of them have not even seen the sea (and will not see ... if they only get a ticket to Crimea from the plant). Shapkozakidatelstvo and exclamations of hurray-depressing. All samples of modern weapons in Russia are either piece copies or paper projects. You can call the analyst "nonsense" as much as you like, but you can't argue with facts