Military Review

The development of the Soviet Navy: a look into the future

180



Unfortunately, it became possible to judge the post-war development of the Soviet Navy only after the collapse of the superpower. Total Soviet secrecy did not give a comprehensive assessment of its fleet either to amateurs or specialists. But after 1991, a whole stream of information poured out on everyone who wanted to drown in it.

The first assessments of the post-war Navy were immediately critical. For professionals - moderately restrained, while others are sometimes simply scandalous. Then it was decided to scold everything Soviet. Today, many estimates are revised, but in the part of the Navy - practically none. A critical assessment of post-war development fleet recorded in many works of many authors of those years. But a serious attempt to voice the revision of these estimates was not undertaken. It is today that a situation has developed where this can and should be done. This article is only an attempt to take such a step.

Evaluation of shipbuilding of the Navy of the USSR. Acting point of view

The fundamental work on the post-war development of the Soviet fleet "USSR Navy 1945-1991 years" (V.P. Kuzin, V.I. Nikol'skii) gives the following characteristic:

If it were not for this inclination towards the rampant construction of a submarine, for the same money it would be possible to build a navy that is not inferior to BNK OK, the US Navy, and invest significant funds in the development of a stationary basing system. Thus, the concept of replacing some ships with others in solving the tasks of the USSR Navy, both tactically, as mentioned above, and economically, was an obvious gamble. INCOMPLETE MILITARY AND POLITICAL DECISIONS led to ADVANTURE MILITARY-TECHNICAL POLICY, and the latter led to INOPTIMAL ECONOMIC COSTS.
Page 458-459.


Let's try to critically evaluate the information provided.

Strategy

Navy is not a thing in itself. It is an integral part of the state’s defense system. Therefore, it makes sense to consider it in the light of the global opposition of the USSR and NATO.

In the post-war period, the great European war was seen as a fleeting conflict in which the USSR would strive to rapidly destroy NATO forces on the continent with its ground forces. (We will consciously ignore the use of ICBMs and nuclear weapons.) Western analysts devoted no more than a month to this, and Soviet Tanks overlooking the English Channel. It is clear that in such a situation, NATO forces will seek to strengthen the grouping in Europe as quickly as possible, fending off the Soviet strike. And the transatlantic convoys transporting equipment from the USA to Germany and France, as well as convoys of important military cargoes from other directions (oil products, timber, gas, ore), became of paramount importance in this. There is no doubt that the USSR will destroy these convoys in order to isolate the theater of operations and to undermine the economic potential of the enemy as much as possible. There is a classic cruising challenge. The task is not the only one, but one of the most important.

And here the Navy begins to play the main role. The nature of the goals is quite definite - these are convoys and warrants in the Atlantic. It is clear that using surface ships, especially given the numerical superiority of NATO fleets, it is extremely difficult to destroy these convoys. Marine missile aviation It has a limited range and low combat stability. But it is precisely for this task that submarines are ideally suited. All that is required of them is to prevent massive military traffic for a month until the ground forces of the USSR defeat the ground forces of NATO in Europe (we do not doubt that the Soviet Union is capable of this).


Behind beautiful aircraft carriers and cruisers there is a “other fleet” of the USA - the most powerful transport in the world. That he could provide an incredible volume of cargo in a short time. In the photo - USNS Gordon (T-AKR 296) at work

Arguments about the development of the fleet will inevitably take the form of opposing the underwater and aircraft carrier directions. These two whales define the face of modern fleets. If the USSR abandoned the mass construction of the submarine and deployed the construction of the AV, what would happen then? Solving the same problem, the Soviet AUG would have to break from the closest Barents Sea to the Atlantic with battles, repelling enemy coastal aviation attacks from Europe, dodging enemy submarines, and at the end of such a campaign, fought with American AUGs. Our aircraft carriers were easily detected and tracked after entering the outer raid of Severomorsk. Getting to the convoys would be incredibly difficult.

For submarines, on the contrary, the problem of a breakthrough was not so acute, for even today the discovery of submarines in the open ocean remains a problem with many unpredictable factors. Even the most advanced means of PLO are not able to track the submarines for a long time and guarantee its destruction. The submarine, having obviously stronger means of hydroacoustics than aircraft or surface ships, maneuvering in three-dimensional space and using means of counteraction in a heterogeneous aquatic environment, is able to avoid attacks and harassment many times. Moreover, the submarine secrecy made it possible to deliver annoying blows even where the enemy did not expect — in the Indian Ocean or in the South Atlantic. Naturally, during the conflict, NATO forces will gradually increase the PLO’s assets and will be able to find and destroy our submarines, but this will take time, which the USSR ground forces occupying all of Europe will not allow for a few weeks.

Map

Head-to-head comparison of the naval forces of the USA and the USSR is always incorrect. Because it does not take into account the peculiarities of geography for each of the parties. Are there many truly maritime countries in the world? Countries that have a spacious outlet to the world ocean? It seems that the USSR with its gigantic marine feature is one of them, but if you forget about the fact that 90% of this coastal feature of 2 / 3 has been closed by ice.

In fact, full-fledged maritime countries - units. These are the USA, Japan, Great Britain, India, the People's Republic of China and partly less important players, such as Brazil, Argentina, Chile, France, and Vietnam. All these countries have a common place - this is a spacious coastline in non-freezing seas with convenient harbors and excellent coastal infrastructure. All US naval bases are located in the most developed parts of the country. The sun shines brightly there, it is warm, and when leaving the bay, giant ocean expanses open up, with incredible depths at which even such a large object as an aircraft carrier can easily get lost. Somewhere in Russia there is something like that? Not.


The open spaces and convenience of the United States Navy "Norfolk" did not even dream of our sailors

All maritime countries have an extremely small number of maritime theaters, which allows them not to split up forces into disparate areas and it is easy to achieve a concentration of forces that is important in military affairs. The United States has two theaters (and then conditionally), Japan, the United Kingdom, India, and the PRC - one theater. Only France has two unrelated theaters of operations. How many theaters does Russia have? Four full and one miniature (Caspian).

Imagine that in a threatened period, the Russian Federation decides to make a maneuver by an aircraft carrier from one theater to another? This will be a new campaign 2-th Pacific Squadron, no less. The submarine maneuver, on the contrary, most likely, no one will even notice until the submarines that have left the north do not emerge in the roads of Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky, and their appearance will not become obvious to satellite reconnaissance assets.

All this suggests that Russia, if it wants to seriously compete with the great maritime powers, cannot act symmetrically. Even if we spend the same amount on our Navy as the United States spends, all the same, at each of our naval theaters, all efforts should be divided into four.

I propose to compare our main databases for a number of parameters so that it is clear how inconvenient maritime geography is available for Russia.

The development of the Soviet Navy: a look into the future


As can be seen from the table, more or less, only Sevastopol falls short of world standards, but it also has a feature that can crush all other virtues - the Turkish straits. According to this parameter, we can say that the conditions of the base location are even worse than “unsatisfactory”.

Is it possible in such conditions to talk about the massive development of aircraft carriers, ships extremely demanding to the expanse and possess the minimum secrecy of all classes of naval weapons?

Ship composition

As is known, the USSR had its own military bloc, conventionally called the “Warsaw Pact countries”. The bloc was created in opposition to NATO. However, even today, when NATO remains, and there is no ATS, analysts and journalists continue to compare the military potential of Russia and the United States. This is a completely unfair assessment, since the United States does not act alone. Correct comparison should be made by Russia / USSR on the one hand, and NATO and Japan on the other. That's when there is a reason for sadness!

ATS countries almost never were taken into account, and in naval terms, all the more. For the United States has many strong naval allies, while the USSR did not have them, and there are not any now.



Did the naval forces of the USSR have enough ships? Yes, he was the largest, largest fleet in the world. So far, we do not take into account that NATO is a single whole. And the fleets of NATO have always surpassed the Soviet Navy in the ship's overall composition. The table shows that only by the number of nuclear submarines of the USSR was on an equal footing with NATO. For the rest of the parameters, even taking into account the fleets of the ATS countries, the backlog was serious.

Can we say that in such conditions the bet on the submarine was wrong? How long did it take to build aircraft carriers and other surface ships for the Soviet Navy in order to defeat the combined forces of NATO in an open "carrier-based" battle? It's scary to even think ...

Economy

It is extremely difficult to calculate the costs of maintaining and building such different combat systems as an aircraft carrier and submarines. In the book “The Navy of the USSR 1945-1991”, such a comparison was made in conventional units of measurement. At the same time, the cost of an aircraft carrier with an AUU is given as 4,16 of the cost of the NPS, and the SSGN (with missile armament) is the 1,7 of the cost of the NPS. This assessment does not look obvious. The net worth of an aircraft carrier as a surface ship cannot be a valid indicator. An aircraft carrier without an air group and escort ships is just a floating hangar. It is more logical to compare the submarine and the AV as a weapon system in the form of a minimum configuration sufficient to start full-fledged hostilities. For AB, such a composition, in addition to the carrier itself, necessarily includes the air group and escort ships. For submarines - only the submarine itself. The cost of the ammunition in both cases will be derived from the calculations, since it strongly depends on the current combat mission.

An approximate calculation of the cost of AB and NPS are shown in the table:


Thus, the AV in combat status is 7,8 cost "PLA with rocket armament" at current prices. Instead of 2,44 for the calculations given by Kuzin and Nikolsky. Perhaps this ratio will not be fair for the Soviet period. storiesbecause relative cost of aircraft was lower. However, such a comparison does show a trend. In the above calculations, there are concessions to the aircraft carrier, since the air group also needs ground infrastructure, a full-fledged aerodrome and many other means of support, without which the aircraft carrier cannot become a combat-ready unit. The NPS does not require this.

During the postwar period, the USSR built the 81 PLAT and the 61 PLARK. Thus, by abandoning the construction of the 61, the SSGN of the USSR could have built 8 full-fledged AUGs. Or, by refusing to build the 81 PLAT, you could build the 7 AUG. The numbers are not impressive, considering that only in the US Navy during the Cold War, the aircraft carriers were used in different periods of the 12-20, and at the same time, the Americans also did not deprive the submarine nuclear fleet. Deprived of the entire atomic submarine fleet of the USSR would have only gotten close to parity with the United States by the number of ABs, while completely losing superiority under water.

Finally, what is a big threat to NATO fleets - 15 strike aircraft carriers, or 142 nuclear submarines? The answer seems obvious.

Target designation

The main difficulty in the work of submarines in the world's oceans has always been targeting. If in the first hours of the conflict, the submarines from the tracking mode could immediately attack the ward targets, then in the future, with the advent of new targets, there was a need for their reconnaissance. For this, during the Soviet era, there were Tu-95РЦ planes and space reconnaissance vehicles. If the Tu-95РЦ was quite vulnerable, and establishing contact with the AUG for it could mean a quick death, then with space everything is not so simple.

Most maritime experts poorly represent features of the operation of spacecraft. Therefore, with respect to them, an opinion was established on their rapid destruction in the event of a global war. This is not entirely true. Reliable means of fast and guaranteed destruction of all enemy's satellites did not exist during the Cold War. By and large, there are none today.

The destruction of low-altitude optical reconnaissance satellites with circular orbits in 300-500 km is quite achievable today for American interceptors GBI and even for marine SM-3. But here the satellite of radar and electronic reconnaissance, the orbits of which are located above the 900 km, is already a problem. And in the maritime intelligence, it is these AESs that play the main role. Only the US GBI system has the potential to destroy them. In addition, the USSR, having a developed network of spaceports and launch vehicles, could for some time continue to launch new satellites instead of intercepted ones, providing, if not continuous reconnaissance, then at least periodic ones. This was quite enough for a rough target designation of the submarines, which, having entered the target area with the help of their hydroacoustics, completely provided additional intelligence on their own.

In the future, it is possible to create maneuvering AESs that can periodically change the parameters of the orbit, creating difficulties for interception. In addition, such satellites can be "low-living", performing the opening of enemy forces at sea for only a few days. Their quick interception on the first turns may be impossible, and after the end of their work the interception simply does not make sense.

Universalism

One of the arguments of the supporters of aircraft carriers is the flexibility of their application. During the Cold War, aircraft carriers many times applied their weapon, albeit mostly along the coast, but during the same time the submarine was fought only a couple of times. The aircraft carrier looks like a multipurpose vehicle that can find work in a local conflict and in a global war.

Submarines can not boast of this. Just a couple of cases of “work” against surface targets and incomparable in scale attacks of coastal targets with the help of cruise missiles.

However, the value of an aircraft carrier as a flexible multipurpose vehicle for Russia is considerably less valuable than for the United States. For the entire post-war history we did not have conflicts where the participation of such ships was clearly required. Even in the current Syrian conflict, an option was found for actions that did not require an aircraft carrier to enter the combat zone.

On the other hand, the development of the submarines led to the fact that they also received the possibility of using them in local conflicts without real naval targets. This is the shelling of coastal objects using cruise missiles. So the role of the submarine in local conflicts has objectively grown, and universality has increased.

Prospects

Evaluation of the events of the past, of course, is of great importance, but it can be of practical use only when planning the future. What has changed since Soviet times? Our economic opportunities have become more modest, the Navy is smaller. The superiority of NATO at sea has increased and the trend towards the reverse process is not visible. Therefore, the experience of the Soviet Navy today may be even more important than ever.

Since the importance of dominance at sea for Russia remains secondary, and economic opportunities are extremely limited, there is reason to concentrate our modest forces on the main thing. First of all, in preparation for the defense of the country from aggression. And only then think about promoting their interests in peacetime and in possible local conflicts.

The author of the article supposes that this is exactly what the naval leaders, who nurture the public with breakfasts about the construction of ocean destroyers and atomic aircraft carriers, argue that year. While the needs of the Navy in nuclear submarines and diesel-electric submarines are not satisfied, it’s not worth talking about aircraft carriers. However, politicians are forced to somehow calm the public, thirsting for beautiful images in the form of Russian aircraft carriers cutting through the water surface. Hence, the promises to start their construction "just about, tomorrow" in the absence of real action. But the construction of nuclear submarines and especially the diesel-electric submarines intensified quite tangibly (although still not enough).


This is how the Russian Federation has a chance to sink ships of more powerful fleets. To find the submarine before the launch of the missiles is very difficult. And after the start, it is senseless to look for it and, most likely, no one

One more important circumstance: submarines equipped with cruise missiles make it possible to elegantly bypass an extremely difficult agreement for the Russian Federation on the limitation of medium and short-range missiles. The SLCM launched by conventional diesel-electric submarines from the Black and Baltic Seas fire through the whole of Europe and with a high degree of probability hit the American missile defense facilities in the Czech Republic, Poland or any other EU country. The same fate can quickly comprehend radar surveillance systems located in Greenland and Alaska. The SLCMs are not invulnerable weapons, but their interception is extremely complicated and will require extreme exertion of forces from fighter aircraft and other NATO air defenses, which, presumably, in the event of war with the Russian Federation and without this, there will be a lot of work.

The aircraft carrier remains the main force of the fleet, and its role is important, but specifically for Russia it does not concern. Protecting coastal communications is better with coastal aviation, and in the open ocean, our tasks are far from “gaining dominance” and require the secrecy and inevitability of the threat, and at the same time whenever possible in many points of the world's oceans. The task is ideal for the submarine. In any prospective conflict, our submarine forces can become a wild headache for the enemy. And, most importantly, the production of the submarine fleet, we never stood idle and did not stop. The organization of mass submarine construction requires minimal investment, which cannot be said about an aircraft carrier, for which it is still necessary to create a production site from scratch and to master a number of technologies that are completely absent in the country.


Submarine construction did not stop even in the 90s. Given that the construction of aircraft carriers in the Russian Federation has stopped, and the construction of large NK is frozen. The photo submarine "Cheetah", SMP, 1999 g. Http://forums.airbase.ru

Nevertheless, the author does not call for changing aircraft carriers on submarines. Russia’s aircraft carrier is also needed, because it will not always be possible to equip the new Hamim in the right area for each case. However, our aircraft carrier is a ship of “peacetime” and a local war, which, in the event of a global military threat, will not go to the ocean to gain dominance at sea, but will remain a coastal floating aerodrome. Therefore, it is not worth investing heavily in economic and scientific efforts in this area. We are quite enough 1-2 aircraft carriers, nothing more.

conclusions

The USSR submarine fleet had a chance to become an important player in a future war. While the fleet "aircraft carrier", most likely, would be engaged in hiding in the skerries because of the fear of large and loud losses when trying to break into the ocean. With the exception of those ships, which the outbreak of war would have taken at sea: they would have fought honestly and, most likely, would have died in the end, taking with them a certain number of enemy ships.

That is why the assessment of the Soviet period in the history of our fleet should be changed. The bet on the submarine fleet was not flawed or erroneous. Only in this way could one expect to inflict perceptible damage on the sea to a deliberately stronger enemy. Another question is that in the construction of the submarine fleet was not without traditional Soviet excesses, and perhaps the very process of development of the submarine fleet was not chosen optimally. But in the strategic plan, reliance on the submarine fleet as applied to our geographical, climatic and economic opportunities has been and remains correct.

Materials used:
Kuzin V.P., Nikolsky V.I. USSR Navy 1945-1991. M .: IMO, 1996.
Filing of the almanac "Typhoon" for 1993-2003.
http://forums.airbase.ru
http://russianships.info
http://www.navysite.de
Author:
180 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Evgeniy667b
    Evgeniy667b 18 December 2015 07: 21
    +5
    Russia's submarine fleet has been, is and will be the most powerful deterrent for any aggressor. The main thing is to support him by all means and means. Particularly needed are multi-purpose submarines and small-displacement submarines with mine blocks for the Kyrgyz Republic.
    1. albanian
      albanian 18 December 2015 07: 54
      +4
      It seems to me that in order to achieve maximum efficiency, pl lacks its own reconnaissance and target designation facilities. In solving this issue, the development of drones and their integration into the existing reconnaissance and monitoring system should help.
      And after the improvement and testing of technologies, the creation of a common field of work for submarine groups (including by their own means), which is now achievable mainly through communication satellites.
      1. Simple
        Simple 18 December 2015 12: 37
        +2
        Now think: HOW to transfer tsu and other data rtr on pl ??
        1. kote119
          kote119 18 December 2015 13: 09
          -1
          by radio
          1. Simple
            Simple 18 December 2015 13: 38
            +1
            Quote: kote119
            by radio

            1. Apply 10-35 kHz on periscope depths for receiving receipts, etc. .. At a bit rate .. hundreds of bps, a word in 40 seconds.
            The low frequency of the carrier wave means that it is extremely difficult to create modulation and choose a coding system that will allow you to quickly transmit a noticeable amount of information. After all, 90 Hz is not even close to 900 MHz, on which GPRS barely works.

            Transmitting Antenna:

            (serves the whole ES)
            2.A for satellite transmission according to the schedule at ascent .....................
            The submarine has surfaced (in the PLO zone) - consider it detected and destroyed with a high degree of probability

            30 July 1944 year in 19.06 boat smoke smoker DZ-910 discovered a boat, going underwater at shallow depth in a northwest direction. The boat MO-103 immediately lay down on the indicated course and began the search. Acoustic contact was established a few minutes later and the first series of three BB-1 depth charges was dropped on a U-250 caught in shallow water. Explosions of bombs on a submarine damaged cylinders of compressed air, which caused the appearance of a bubble trail under water
            Quote: Albanian
            drone development



            Focke-Achgelis Fa-330 "Bachstelze" ("Wagtail") - a rotorcraft carried by a submarine, something like a kite that could be quickly deployed and collapsed.
        2. dauria
          dauria 18 December 2015 23: 46
          0
          Now think: HOW to transfer tsu and other data rtr on pl ??


          Well, what if the floating buoy is free? And from it to the submarine itself with a hydro-acoustic channel. I think a couple of tens of kilometers can be provided today. And the buoys themselves are disposable, and you can throw them in advance in the area.

          Although a long time ago they talked seriously about the connection on a neutrino stream right through the globe through. It was an interesting idea, although the transmission speed is scanty, and the neutrino detector was the size of a wagon.
      2. Scraptor
        Scraptor 18 December 2015 13: 43
        -5
        Quote: Albanian
        It seems to me that in order to achieve maximum efficiency, pl lacks its own intelligence and target designation tools.

        The anti-aircraft and anti-aircraft submarines, in contrast to the NK, are almost completely defenseless, and aviation has long been the main means of destruction, both at sea and over land, as well as a means of ... anti-submarine warfare.
        Quote: Alex_59

        Discussions about the development of the fleet will inevitably take the form of contrasting submarine and aircraft carrier directions. These two whales define the face of modern fleets. If the USSR refused mass construction of submarines and launched the construction of AB, what would happen then?

        Is it really so? And they do not oppose each other with all the other Navy, but complement each other! laughing
        Then it would be if a serious war started
        We will consciously ignore the use of ICBMs and nuclear weapons.

        it would be the same tops as in the Cuban Crisis of 1962 and a much faster defeat than the Germans in the Bay of Biscay 1943. This is despite the fact that the Germans then relied on their French submarine bases and airfields.
        1. spravochnik
          spravochnik 18 December 2015 15: 12
          +2
          You are absolutely right. This is a balanced fleet, where the surface and underwater components harmoniously complement each other.
    2. The comment was deleted.
  2. hohryakov066
    hohryakov066 18 December 2015 07: 34
    13
    To the author +. From this point of view, I did not consider this issue. Interesting and informative.
    1. Per se.
      Per se. 18 December 2015 19: 57
      -7
      Quote: hohryakov066
      Interesting and informative.
      Yes, it is interesting and informative ... However, if you continue the author's logic further, you can agree that instead of submarines, you can make rockets of soil systems. What is the author's pearl, - "In fact, there are only a few full-fledged maritime countries. These are the USA, Japan, Great Britain, India, China and some less significant players such as Brazil, Argentina, Chile, France, Vietnam "! Russia is not on this list, Peter I, after this revelation, as a bronze horseman, must drive up to the author and personally shake hands, as in "The Stone Guest", the author deserves it. Comparisons such as "Finally, what is a big threat to NATO fleets - 15 strike aircraft carriers, or 142 nuclear submarines? The answer seems obvious.", I would like to answer that the answer is not at all obvious, since the comparison itself is absurd, besides, why should the United States build only aircraft carriers? The States, for that matter, will have several of their own for each of our boats, but the author is already If we do not win the race on aircraft carriers, as if the Yankees will give us a head start on boats, they will arrange a moratorium for themselves. Enough already, fans of Doenitz, the fleet can be either strong or weak. A strong fleet is always balanced, capable of performing any tasks at sea, and boats alone cannot accomplish these tasks.Without integrated development, with one-sidedness, we will get a flawed fleet, and the point here is not in the rivalry in the number of aircraft carriers or destroyers, but in the possibility of full use of our fleet, moreover, solving problems in peacetime and pre-war times, it is no less important than in wartime.Submarines alone cannot solve these problems, especially since in addition to a global nuclear war, there are many local conflicts, threats and tasks for a cat They need a fleet. I did not give the author a minus for the article, but the fact that Russia is not considered a maritime power is worth a thousand minuses. A country cannot be great without a strong, balanced fleet, and Russia can only be great or no longer be Russia itself, we have no third choice.
      1. Igluxnumx
        Igluxnumx 19 December 2015 11: 07
        +1
        In assessing "full-fledged maritime countries" the author proceeds from the geographical position of these countries, the convenience of going out into the ocean, where there is space and depth - is it really incomprehensible? And given that we have learned how to build submarines with high stealth and powerful weapons, 142 SSBNs will really be more abruptly than 15 AUG. In addition to stealth (by the way, the main weapon of all submarines!), We also learned how to build a submarine with a strong titanium hull, which made it possible to achieve an underwater speed of about 50 knots and diving depths of about 700 - 800 m. Not all GBs are designed for detonation for such depth. In addition, the radius of effective damage at such depths is greatly reduced due to the high pressure of the medium. It turns out that hitting a submarine with a titanium case is like hitting a poppy seed with a needle. So a chest with a wheel is good, but a cold head is better. I have the honor!
        1. Per se.
          Per se. 19 December 2015 13: 18
          +1
          Quote: Iglu40
          In assessing "full-fledged maritime countries" the author proceeds from the geographical position of these countries, the convenience of going out into the ocean, where there is space and depth - is it really incomprehensible?
          This is understandable, it is not clear why China or India is a more maritime power than Russia. It is not clear how Vietnam, Chile or Brazil is richer and more developed than us.
          Quote: Iglu40
          So chest wheel is good, but a cold head is better.
          The coldest head of the dead. I regret that I was too emotionally in a hurry to comment on the article, but for all my balanced rationality, the conclusions of Alexei Polyakov are far from unambiguous. If the author, analyzing the Soviet period, concludes that "in the strategic plan, reliance on the submarine fleet in relation to our geographical, climatic and economic capabilities was and remains correct," then the importance of the Arctic for our submarine missile fleet was the most urgent, but from the author, - "Are there really many maritime countries in the world? Countries that have a spacious outlet to the world ocean? It seems that the USSR with its gigantic sea line is one of them, but if you forget that 90% of this coastline 2/3 years covered with ice ", that is, an area that can be made the" Russian Sea ", precisely for the dominance of our fleet, primarily underwater, its deployment and combat duty under the ice, as if not the coastline, not the sea. We must understand that boats, like those of Admiral Doenitz, must fight for the Atlantic, exactly where the aviation and fleet of our potential adversaries, together with all their active and passive tracking systems, dominate. There is not a word that the Yankees ignore the construction of diesel-electric boats, and we do not, developing and improving this class of boats. And, if we talk about the approach to the shores of the United States, then it is our "black holes" that could really strain America if there were constantly a dozen of such boats with nuclear missile launchers off the Atlantic and Pacific coasts of the States. Without denying the need for one or two aircraft carriers, the author of the article actually casts doubt on the entire surface fleet in general, does not assess the role of the fleet in "peacetime", its importance in the prelaunch state before the war, finally, ignores the very fact of the role of the surface fleet in the prevention of war. by stopping problems in local conflicts, creating pressure points, demonstrating the flag, while defending national interests. All this cannot be solved by one submarine fleet, which can "recoup" its potential mainly during the war, being actually out of the game before. Alas, the point here is not only in Georgia, which is no longer taken into account for Russia, but for its opponents. Sorry for being meticulous, but I do not agree with the author's conclusions that they seem so correct and calmly reasoned.
          1. Boa kaa
            Boa kaa 19 December 2015 19: 37
            +4
            Quote: Per se.
            And, if we talk about the approach to the shores of the United States, then it is our "black holes" that could really strain America if there were constantly a dozen of such boats with nuclear missile launchers off the Atlantic and Pacific coasts of the States.
            Hello Sergey! You, as a soldier of the old guard of our site, probably know the history of the naval part of Operation Anadyr!
            Well, our 877 (black holes) can’t accomplish this task: after 4 days you need to beat the battery charge, to become under the RPD - the end of stealth! BPA gas analyzers will immediately cut off the exhaust gases ... And then the maneuvering forces of the PLO will square-nest the way to plow the sea square by square. And the BPA - will plant all adjacent water areas with RSLAs ...
            But KALINA with VNEU is yes, it is a real threat to the Amer fleet off its shores ... But the "cash cows", as it was under Doenitz, will have to be displayed.
            But if you act with the Navy of CUBA or Venezuela - it may well be scary for advocates of planting democracy. They already have experience of losing the PLC when searching for A19 (Gotland). Apparently they are seriously puzzled by our NAPL.
            But still pr885 standing in the hall in front of the office of c / a Dave Johnson - the head of the US submarine development program
            1. Per se.
              Per se. 20 December 2015 15: 41
              +1
              Quote: Boa constrictor KAA
              Well, our 877 (black holes) cannot complete this task.
              Hello, Alexander! Speaking about "black holes", I did not argue that these should be boats of Project 877 "Varshavyanka" (however, this concept stuck with them, my defect), and, moreover, that our boats should approach the coast so that , literally, watch the beaches of America through the periscope. Noting that we are improving boats, I believed that the development of the topic with VNEU is natural. In addition, speaking of boats "off the coast" of the States, I also noted the role of the surface fleet, which is necessary to cover the boats. If we return to the topic of the conclusions of Soviet development, then they are unlikely to climb to fight for the Atlantic, where the total dominance of the United States and NATO is. The Germans in World War II had a lot of good boats, but lost the battle for the Atlantic, then they were mainly opposed by the United States and England with their dominions, now in the Atlantic there are much larger forces against us. The fact that the Soviet Union came to the Arctic boats of the "Akula" class is probably a more correct conclusion from the Soviet period. In the Arctic, there is no enemy surface fleet and aircraft, there are own shores nearby. The topic of creating active and passive tracking systems against enemy boats that graze at our bases has already been raised in the Russian Arctic. This is also a topic, as is the creation of a safe zone in the Arctic for their boats, and full control over enemy boats. The creation of an ocean-going fleet in the USSR, the beginning of the construction of a nuclear aircraft carrier of the Ulyanovsk project is also a topic for conclusions. I wanted to express it. Minuses, of course, do not raise the mood, especially when they are put in support of the company, sometimes without delving into the comment on what to do, he said what he was thinking. I am grateful to you for the answer, your opinion as a sailor and specialist is important to me.
        2. Boa kaa
          Boa kaa 19 December 2015 19: 02
          +5
          The koment is interesting, but there are pearls that are hard to get past without mentioning a couple of phrases!
          Quote: Iglu40
          And given the fact that we learned how to build submarines with high stealth and powerful weapons, 142 SSBNs will actually be better than 15 AUGs.

          Something I did not meet in the plans of the General Staff of the Navy 142 SSBNs! (that is, rpkSN). Amy - 14 Nuts, we have 14 (SF: pr941U-1, pr955-1, pr 667BDRM-6; Pacific Fleet: pr955-2, pr667BDR-4), 4 each from France and GB ... Where does 142 SSBN come from?
          Quote: Iglu40
          In addition to secrecy (by the way - the main weapon of all submarines!)
          Forced to disappoint you: HIDDEN - the main TACTICAL PROPERTY of submarines. And the main weapon for different classes of submarines is different: for rpkSN (SSBNs) - SLBMs, for plRK - KRBD / PKR; for multipurpose (percussion) - RCC, PLRK, TO, MO - depending on the task.
          Quote: Iglu40
          underwater speeds of about 50 knots and diving depths of the order of 700 - 800 m. Not all GBs are designed to undermine at such a depth.

          Do not comfort yourself with hope! MK-48 of all modifications dive up to 800m. Only Fin could go 1200m, but alas, he was gone.
          И Secondly, GB (as you put it) is now with SBP. And she doesn’t care how deep the sea is for her to boil.
          Third, the greater the depth - the stronger the water hammer - the denser the water, the higher the voltage of the durable casing - and here is the situation: the straw breaks the ridge of a camel ...
          Fourth, I do not think that CEP will climb to the maximum diving depth - this is the same as walking on a razor's edge over an abyss in the dark! There are no 100% technically reliable ships (complex engineering systems)! the slightest "not THAT", and eternal glory to the heroes!
          Quote: Iglu40
          hitting a submarine with a titanium case is like getting a needle into a poppy seed.

          And from what kind of carriages is such a conclusion drawn?
          Believe me, the dashboard when it captured the target is absolutely violet what your boat is made of. A 500kg TGA (with a coefficient of 3,7 to TNT) will do its job, and with a non-contact explosion it is 1,5 times more effective due to hydrodynamic shock.
          Here is where your recommendation is more relevant than ever:
          Quote: Iglu40
          chest with a wheel is good, but a cold head is better.

          Yours faithfully, hi
        3. spravochnik
          spravochnik 21 December 2015 14: 29
          0
          And remind me how many and which submarines with the qualities you listed are in the Russian Navy? Titanium submarines, except for special ones, there are 4 left pr.945. And then, in the sludge or repair. And their performance characteristics are not as outstanding as you have listed. Therefore, in order to follow your suggestions, you must first create such boats and in sufficient quantities.
      2. Alex_59
        21 December 2015 08: 40
        +2
        Quote: Per se.
        What is the author's pearl - "In fact, there are only a few full-fledged maritime countries. These are the USA, Japan, Great Britain, India, China and partly less significant players such as Brazil, Argentina, Chile, France, Vietnam"!

        As a man in love with the sea, I want to write less than anyone that Russia is not the most maritime power. It's like a knife to the heart. But damn it, it's true! Geography and climate can not be redone. Russia is a great maritime power, we have a great maritime history. But the geographical and climatic conditions we have are the most filthy among the sea powers on planet Earth. This is true. So, with all due respect to Peter the Great, you need to soberly assess your position and not harbor dangerous illusions.
        1. Per se.
          Per se. 21 December 2015 19: 27
          +1
          Quote: Alex_59
          So, with all due respect to Peter the Great, you need to soberly assess your position and not harbor dangerous illusions.
          Well, Alexey, let's hope that neither my illusions nor your common sense will harm Russia. By the way, the developed infrastructure of the US Navy on the coasts, as, for example, with the photo "The spaciousness and convenience of the US Navy" Norfolk ", urban agglomerations on the coasts, have not only pluses, but also minuses, with a massive strike on the coast and bases. there will be an opportunity to calmly discuss in the future on topics related to the fleet. Sorry if I was harsh in the first comment. All the best, I hope, continue your articles.
  3. inkass_98
    inkass_98 18 December 2015 07: 40
    +7
    In terms of secrecy, defense and offensive power, the inevitability of a retaliation strike, submarines have no equal, this is understandable. But submarines you won’t win an operation like the current Syrian one, you need large surface ships and support vessels. Therefore, a bias in one direction or another will always be wrong, making the fleet flawed. A certain balance is needed, which should be determined on the basis of the specifics of using one or another fleet, taking into account, of course, possible areas of deployment.
    1. Army soldier2
      Army soldier2 18 December 2015 16: 26
      +1
      Large surface ships will not win the "Syrian operation" either.
  4. Kudrevkn
    Kudrevkn 18 December 2015 07: 53
    12
    The most accurate assessment of the Soviet Navy of the USSR was given by the Minister of the US Navy of the Reagan times Adm. Lehman: "The only mortal threat - the problem for the US is the Soviet submarines!" The concept of a "mosquito" fleet in conditions of limited funding and a weakened economy after the two world wars and the Civil War was the only correct decision! And in the current conditions this is also correct. The only thing I would like to propose to the country's leadership is to quickly solve the problem of qualitative (and not quantitative) changes in the economy, changing part of the cabinet of ministers headed by Medvedev as incapable of fulfilling their duties! Let the LADIES "jurid" in the courts of the Constitutional Court or the Supreme Court! Is this his element - legal practice? And the economy and production should be dealt with by professionals, and not demagogues and talkers like Rogozin or Dvorkovich and Shuvalov? Commercials we will come to 1917 or to the battleship "Potemkin" !?
    1. Azitral
      Azitral 18 December 2015 12: 00
      +1
      "And the economy and production should be dealt with by professionals, not demagogues and talkers like Rogozin or Dvorkovich ..."
      Please - at least one suitable candidate for "professional"? And Ragozin knows how to talk, but does not treat irresponsible talkers in any way. He is constantly learning. And, in my opinion, it copes. Maybe someone could do better.
    2. Scraptor
      Scraptor 19 December 2015 14: 44
      -2
      Quote: KudrevKN
      The most accurate assessment of the Soviet Navy of the USSR was given by the Minister of the US Navy of the Reagan times Adm. Lehman: "The only mortal threat - the problem for the US is the Soviet submarines!"

      Are you sure that he was telling the truth? bully
      1. Boa kaa
        Boa kaa 19 December 2015 19: 46
        +1
        Quote: Scraptor
        Are you sure that he was telling the truth?

        And what, they at that time could intercept the R-29, released from the Gulf of St. Lawrence? or from an undisguised anything southern missile-dangerous direction?
        So, the American admiral did not cheat. In general, they are not accustomed to this, for they are accustomed to answer for every word. They are taught this in Annapolis. yes
        1. Scraptor
          Scraptor 19 December 2015 22: 02
          -3
          They could intercept and drive all the submarines carrying these P-29s. laughing
          Sorry, like that admiral you are here, and this they are taught even before Annapolis.
          Strategic Rocket Forces and R-36 was a threat to them. NPS with the introduction of a hydrophone network only under the ice cap.
          1. Boa kaa
            Boa kaa 19 December 2015 23: 44
            +2
            Quote: Scraptor
            They could intercept and drive all the submarines carrying these P-29s.
            No, we checked everything according to the intelligence data ... There wasn’t such that all the boats led. This is the nonsense of our home-grown liberals. It’s not worth it to be carried on.
            1. Scraptor
              Scraptor 20 December 2015 11: 52
              0
              Load the oranges with barrels ... Some chance the nuclear submarines have only chances under the polar ice where the work of the NK and aviation is difficult, and the boat remains against the boat.
          2. Boa kaa
            Boa kaa 20 December 2015 10: 14
            +1
            Quote: Scraptor
            Sorry, like that admiral you are here, and this they are taught even before Annapolis.
            Not accustomed, since the cadet!
            I have a negative attitude to Amer politicians who can give out black for white, like any other merchants. But the American military, at the hearings in the committees (subcommittees) of the Congress, is telling the truth. Condemned even in a little lie with his own hands puts an end to his future career.
            Yes, they can sincerely be mistaken about what is better to eat for dessert: avocado or mango ... but not on the country's security.
            And one more, but (in my opinion) significant remark.
            Intelligent and knowledgeable officers become their admirals, regardless of origin.
            1. Scraptor
              Scraptor 20 December 2015 12: 09
              0
              And to other spies you also always tell the truth and do not try to mislead the leadership of a potential adversary like the admiral through the press? lol
            2. spravochnik
              spravochnik 21 December 2015 14: 44
              0
              And General Colin Powell with a test tube - how's that?
  5. Maegrom
    Maegrom 18 December 2015 08: 01
    +3
    Great article. Germany also understood doom in a symmetrical war with the UK. I always thought about the need for forces in four theaters. Turkey because of this is especially valuable in NATO. Only peacetime will allow maneuvering by the fleet. Therefore, the aircraft carriers of Russia are peacetime ships.
    Another question is the ability of even 100 nuclear submarines in the conditions of aviation and ship counteraction to block the transfer of forces across the Atlantic.
    1. spravochnik
      spravochnik 18 December 2015 15: 17
      +1
      Unable to cover their surface fleet without cover. It is proved by the final part of the battle for the Atlantic. Or, submarines must be so advanced (well, a pure UFO) that they can resist all types of threats, which in the current conditions is completely unrealistic.
  6. sevtrash
    sevtrash 18 December 2015 08: 09
    +3
    "... being determines consciousness ...", as far as possible to tie this phrase from Marx to the topic, more roughly - stretch your legs over your clothes. The prospect of building a navy must proceed from the capabilities of the economy and reasonable expediency. Therefore, the main task of the Navy and the related issues of building the fleet is service / reproduction of SSBNs, ensuring their survival before launch, service / release of ships to protect the coastal zone.
  7. podgornovea
    podgornovea 18 December 2015 08: 15
    +3
    It is incorrect to add escort ships to the cost of an aircraft carrier because Cousin and Nikolsky did not encroach on the cruisers and destroyers which are escort ships.

    "for a month, until the ground forces of the USSR defeat the ground forces of NATO in Europe (we do not question the fact that the army of the USSR is capable of this)" Firstly, then not the USSR but the Internal Affairs Directorate, and secondly, with approximately equal combat capabilities The OVD and NATO can only be "defeated within a month" while on the defensive. The fact that NATO in fact would have risked attacking first is extremely doubtful, after the Cuban missile crisis, both sides understood how the "small victorious war" could end. Well, when attacking the NATO defense prepared in advance, the OVD should have had at least a two-threefold superiority.

    Aircraft carriers in the USSR were intended primarily to give combat stability to deployed groups of warships, to cover the areas of SSBN deployment, and to provide air defense and anti-aircraft defense. And in the amount of 20 units in this case, of course, they were not needed. No more than 10 class "Ulyanovsk" is enough or even somewhat redundant.
    1. Alex_59
      18 December 2015 08: 57
      +8
      Quote: podgornovea
      Well, the ATS in an attack on a pre-prepared defense of NATO, it would be necessary to have at least two or three times superiority.

      I did not consider land matters, this is a separate deep topic. But the figure announced in the article - a month before reaching the shores of the Atlantic - is an assessment of Western specialists, not ours. ATS could well create a threefold superiority in ground forces over NATO in Europe. The USSR alone plucked so many tanks that it was possible to provide tenfold superiority if desired.
      Quote: podgornovea
      It is incorrect to add escort ships to the cost of an aircraft carrier because Cousin and Nikolsky did not encroach on the cruisers and destroyers which are escort ships.

      Partly agree. But not really. Kuzin and Nikolsky did not encroach on those NKs that were already being built, and not on those that would need to be additionally built for the purpose of protecting AUG. Soviet RKR were few in number and were not suitable for escort. BOD could guard the AB, but they had their own specific task - the hunt for SSBNs, from which no one would release them. Consequently, the USSR would have been forced to expand the construction of escort ships in addition to those that were already under construction if it wanted to develop AUG.
      1. spravochnik
        spravochnik 18 December 2015 11: 58
        +2
        This is why the Soviet RKR did not suit? 1164 would look great in an AUG order. And mutual cover would be provided. And who would allow our BOD to hunt for SSBNs without cover? BOD is just a PLO escort of surface units of the fleet.
        1. Alex_59
          18 December 2015 13: 57
          +1
          Quote: spravochnik
          This is why the Soviet RKR did not suit?
          Not suitable due to the small number and irrationality of the performance characteristics for the AUG escort. PLO insufficient, strike weapons - excessive.
          Quote: spravochnik
          And who would allow our BOD to hunt for SSBNs without cover?
          Well, somehow, after all, they hunted without air cover. He was not and was not planned. Do not you think the Yak-38 is a serious cover. In theory, they were supposed to kill the US SSBN from the tracking regime at the beginning of the great war. But they would hardly have managed to do this in reality, unlike the PLA. PLA had a chance to kill SSBNs and still dump on a quiet one. BOD had almost no such chances.
          1. spravochnik
            spravochnik 18 December 2015 15: 25
            +1
            No need to blunt. They hunted in peacetime, in war they would have been immediately destroyed. Project 1164 cruisers were laid down 6 pcs. And it was also planned for a modernized project. 1 cruiser in each AUG, or even two. SAM "Fort" - zonal air defense orders, BOD provide anti-aircraft weapons. Everyone will pounce on the submarine in wartime.
      2. podgornovea
        podgornovea 21 December 2015 13: 01
        0
        "Land affairs" is not a separate topic if they substantiate the quantitative and qualitative composition of the fleet!
        If "a month before reaching the shores of the Atlantic" is not feasible, then the whole concept of the validity of making a decision on the composition of the fleet collapses.

        Western assessments are good for knocking money out of Congress. There are other assessments, for example:

        "According to the data given in Valentin Varennikov's book" Unique ", by the beginning of the 80s, NATO in Europe had a slight advantage in conventional weapons. The alliance had 94 combat-ready divisions (including about 60 separate combat-ready brigades), the Warsaw Pact had 78 At the same time, the size of the deployed American division was 16-19 thousand, and the divisions of the FRG - more than 23 thousand people, while the division of the armies of the Warsaw Pact countries numbered a maximum of 11-12 thousand people. The ATS had a significant superiority in tanks. In addition, the United States and its allies outnumbered the socialist bloc in combat aircraft by 1,2 times, and by helicopters by 1,8 times. "
        Source: 7 Facts About the Warsaw Pact Organization
        © Russian Seven russian7.ru
        In addition, do not forget about the transport shoulder when transferring personnel, equipment, ammunition, etc. from the border and internal regions of the USSR through Poland, the German Democratic Republic, and then Germany to France. The European countries of NATO in this regard were not comparable with logistics (especially given the development of transport infrastructure).

        If I’m not mistaken, the same Nikolsky says that submarines have an absolute advantage in the detection range in comparison with surface ships.
        In addition, the PLA when tracking SSBNs is much more secretive.
        If Soviet BODs can successfully hunt for American SSBNs, why can't their frigates and destroyers do this with our submarines? And what ratios of hunters and victims will be on either side? Taking into account the possibilities of hydroacoustics and noise. How many submarines will operate in the Atlantic, all? Will there be none in the Pacific?

        So the idea of ​​blocking ocean communications and capturing Europe in a month is not feasible. It’s much more rational to use submarines to track SSBNs and then they need much less, and you’ll look at the aircraft carriers.
        Everything needs balance.
    2. remy
      remy 18 December 2015 13: 40
      -1
      here's an interesting new aircraft carrier concept
      1. spravochnik
        spravochnik 18 December 2015 15: 01
        +1
        Far from new. This concept is about 15 years old, the American development in the framework of the CVX project.
      2. Dimon19661
        Dimon19661 18 December 2015 17: 54
        +1
        Great concept, with one runway !!!!))))) Another artist who did not see the sea painted.
        1. spravochnik
          spravochnik 21 December 2015 14: 51
          0
          You are inattentive. Landing strip 1, like modern AB. And there are two takeoff positions. They are simply lowered by the deck below, to the level of the hangar. This is the reincarnation of an old idea, AB "Yorktown" originally had catapults in the hangar, however, then they were dismantled.
  8. Alex_T
    Alex_T 18 December 2015 08: 30
    +2
    Good reasoned article. In a war, God forbid, the main thing is efficiency, not spectacularity. For these purposes, submarines are much better suited than aircraft carriers. Back in the 90s, I read an article that aircraft carriers are good against an obviously weak enemy. For a strong enemy, an aircraft carrier and its escort group is not the most convenient, but concentrated target, which in the event of a full-scale war will be, if not destroyed, then incapacitated by a pair of tactical special munitions from the same submarine.
    1. Boa kaa
      Boa kaa 19 December 2015 20: 01
      +2
      Quote: Alex_T
      an aircraft carrier and its escort group is not the most convenient, but concentrated target, which in the event of a full-scale war will be, if not destroyed, then incapacitated by a pair of tactical special munitions from the same submarine.

      With a pair of UPSs you can disable ... 2 ships!
      For the order is being built in a counter-atomic version! Based on the assumption that 1 mid-range SBP (tactical) can hit only 1 NK. Well, of course, if such a ship turns out to be the main goal - AVU - then the task of defeating the AUG is considered completed.
  9. Maegrom
    Maegrom 18 December 2015 08: 34
    +2
    I will add - the use of nuclear submarines against the merchant fleet is tantamount to using modern computers as a calculator - but the effect of the destruction of port infrastructure by a nuclear strike can seriously complicate the transfer of forces and resources.
    1. Boa kaa
      Boa kaa 19 December 2015 20: 08
      +1
      Quote: Maegrom
      the use of nuclear submarines against the merchant fleet is tantamount to using modern computers as a calculator

      It will surprise you, but it is the destruction of transports that is the main task of multipurpose boats. And the fight against warships (missile defense carriers) is a condition for striking ICBMs, the destruction of SSBNs is the main task of all ships and forces of the fleet! Be it at least a sea tug that rammed it or successfully "dropped the anchor overboard"!
  10. Odysseus
    Odysseus 18 December 2015 08: 43
    15
    In general, the article is excellent, put +. Only a couple of additions.
    1) Although the development strategy of the USSR Navy was correct, this does not mean that there were no problems; the main ones were that the infrastructure for basing and repairing ships shamelessly lagged behind the needs of the fleet, which did not allow the efficient use and modernization of existing ships. all the funds and resources were not enough; I would like a more balanced structure.
    2) Military strategy is a derivative of the political strategy. The strategy of the "defensive fleet" adopted in the 60s was a product of Khrushchev's ideas about the possibility of "peaceful coexistence" with the world of capitalism.
    However, this is a fundamental mistake - the world of capitalism was not at all going to “coexist peacefully with us.” Moreover, when adopting such an idea, we not only stood up for a deaf ideological defense, but also transferred the competition of the two systems onto economic rails, which, given the capital accumulated by Western countries and their control over the colonial system, inevitably led us to defeat (especially since Khrushchev had a falling out with the PRC). As a result, the Soviet fleet, like the Soviet army as a whole, lost without a single shot.
    It would be hard to say what a fleet development strategy would be if the Stalinist policy of attacking capital was continued. We would combine our capabilities with China and set up military bases around the world. But in any case, this would be a completely different story.
    1. Sergej1972
      Sergej1972 18 December 2015 14: 10
      +2
      Yes, Khrushchev had a falling out with the PRC. Although the Chinese are also partly to blame for this quarrel, moreover, the position which the Maoists took on internal and foreign policy, at least until 1976, was condemned in our country in the Brezhnev era. I am sure that if the Chinese started a "cultural revolution" or "great leap" during the years of Stalin's rule in the USSR, their position would be condemned by the Stalinist leadership.
      In general, read the filing of Soviet newspapers of the 60s-70s, the decisions of the Plenums of the Central Committee, etc. Criticism of the PRC leadership under Brezhenev exceeded this criticism by an order of magnitude in the last years of Khrushchev's rule. By the way, almost the most on behalf of the Soviet Union made anti-Maoist statements in the last years of Khrushchev's rule and in the first years of Brezhnev's rule Andropov spoke. Although during the years of his rule, relations with the PRC slowly began to improve. But this was after a radical change in the course of the PRC's domestic and foreign policy, after the condemnation of the "cultural revolution" and the exposure of the "gang of four."
      1. Odysseus
        Odysseus 18 December 2015 21: 34
        +1
        Quote: Sergej1972
        Although part of the blame in this quarrel lies with the Chinese

        Mao, of course, was a rare bastard and rather a Chinese nationalist than a communist (there is an excellent book on this topic "Special Region of China"), but in this case it is not his fault.
        The beginning of the "quarrel" was laid by the events of 1953 (the death of Stalin and Beria), and the breakup between the PRC and the USSR was predetermined after Khrushchev's report on the cult of personality. "Mao immediately realized that this blow to the very heart of Soviet society indirectly hits him , and that Khrushchev's next step will be to replace the leadership of all "fraternal Communist Parties."
        After the report, China took a course towards a gradual break in relations, a campaign was carried out to "abandon blind faith," and at the same time, a "great leap", the very essence of which was to increase China's economic and military might in the face of a break with the USSR and, most importantly, in personnel reading of "pro-Soviet elements".
        Thus, the root cause of the gap is the report "On the personality cult".
        Quote: Sergej1972
        I am sure that if the Chinese started a "cultural revolution" or "great leap forward" during the years of Stalin's rule in the USSR, their position would be condemned by the Stalinist leadership.

        This is a well-known mistake. You extrapolate the assessment of later events into the past. Just the "Great Leap Forward" and, to a lesser extent, the "Cultural Revolution" were the result of the severance of relations with the USSR. Under the Stalinist leadership, the "Great Leap Forward" simply would not have arisen.
        Quote: Sergej1972
        The criticism of the leadership of the PRC under Brezhenev exceeded this criticism by an order of magnitude in the last years of Khrushchev's rule.

        So after all, in ideological, foreign policy and personnel relations, Brezhnev's leadership continued Khrushchev's line. Brezhnev and Co. simply removed the adventurer Khrushchev, whose constant throwing from side to side threatened to imbalance the entire economy and personnel leapfrog. But in key issues, Brezhnev continued Khrushchev's policy. He simply "froze "the ideological crisis generated by Khrushchev. And after Brezhnev's death, this crisis turned into an acute phase, giving rise to" perestroika. "
        Quote: Sergej1972
        Although during the years of his reign, relations with the PRC slowly began to improve.

        The changes were cosmetic, after 1978, the PRC leadership began to count on increasing the state’s power through Western investment (plus Chinese emigrants) using the cold war of the USSR and the USA.The real changes began at the end of Gorbachev’s reign, when the PRC decided to start collecting cream from the destruction of the USSR.
    2. Boa kaa
      Boa kaa 19 December 2015 20: 38
      +2
      Where are you going, Odysseus? From the wife, from the children ...
      Quote: Odyssey
      we not only stood in the blank ideological defense, but also transferred the competition of the two systems to economic footing,

      And where are you the villain
      got such ideas?

      In ideology, we were advancing! Therefore, the colonial system of imperialism collapsed. (See social studies textbooks). A world socialist system has emerged - 10 countries of popular democracy. 30 countries under our ideological influence announced a non-capitalist path of development.
      The rate of economic growth was such that out of devastation we got to the 2nd place in the world in terms of GDP.
      If it were not for Gorbachev, the agent of influence, they would have got the "ears from a dead donkey," and not the ruins of the MSS.
      Quote: Odyssey
      As a result, the Soviet fleet, like the Soviet army as a whole, lost without a single shot.

      Did you accidentally hit your head nowhere?
      The tragedy of the collapse of the country and its armed forces is not the same as the defeat in the Vietnam adventure! Here we were betrayed, there amers slapped in the face! Feel the difference, "philosopher".
      Quote: Odyssey
      We would combine our capabilities with China and set up military bases around the world.

      Well, and how would we be different from them then? In general, the base is not our style! And Nikita did not have to fight with China, posing as a uberkommunisten. Mao was afraid of Mustachioed, but didn’t put Nikita penniless, because He knew how he was dancing in a squat before the Master of the hopak.
      Quote: Odyssey
      But in any case, it would be a completely different story.

      History has no subjunctive mood (c)
      1. Odysseus
        Odysseus 20 December 2015 20: 00
        0
        Quote: Boa constrictor KAA
        In ideology, we were advancing!

        Until 1953, then began a "retreat" in the form of a struggle against the "personality cult", theories of "peaceful coexistence", and then "convergence" altogether. By the end of the 60s, the situation was difficult - inside the country, the mass spread and gained influence " dissidents ", outside the" fraternal communist parties "strove to go to the West, there was a complete rupture with the PRC. By 1985, everything ended in complete surrender.
        Quote: Boa constrictor KAA
        Therefore, the colonial system of imperialism collapsed.

        Indeed, after the war, the USSR made a lot of efforts to dismantle the colonial system, and indeed this became an important factor in its destruction. But the main factor here was that this system in the West itself was recognized as ineffective - and was replaced by a much more perfect system of neocolonialism or "peripheral capitalism ". It was not possible to wrest most of the countries of the 3rd world from the influence of the West.
        Quote: Boa constrictor KAA
        10 countries of people's democracy

        This is still under Stalin, after it we acquired only Cuba (merit of Castro) and Vietnam (our merit). But the main thing is not this main ideology.
        Quote: Boa constrictor KAA
        The rate of economic growth was such that out of devastation we got to the 2nd place in the world in terms of GDP.

        The justice and economic advantages of socialism are undeniable (by the way, they did not consider GDP in the USSR). But in the West, as I wrote, there was an absolute superiority in the accumulated capital and use of the countries of the 3rd world. However, it is not the economy, the economy is a derivative, we did not lose -for economics, it's about ideology.
        Quote: Boa constrictor KAA
        If it were not for Gorbachev, the agent of influence, they would have got "ears from a dead donkey," and not the ruins of the MSS

        And the General Secretary of the CPSU M.S. Gorbachev was sent to us from Mars? Or straight from the Pentagon? Together with all the Politburo and the Central Committee of the Party that carried out perestroika? Sorry, but this is just childish reasoning.
        Quote: Boa constrictor KAA
        The tragedy of the collapse of the country and its armed forces is not the same as the defeat in the Vietnam adventure! Here we were betrayed, there amers slapped in the face! Feel the difference, "philosopher".

        And here is Vietnam? Another well-developed strategy is a continuation of the political strategy. We didn’t lose in the war, the army was in perfect order, we lost in policy .And losing in politics, we lost in everything else. As a result, the army lost without war There is no military fault here.
      2. Odysseus
        Odysseus 20 December 2015 20: 02
        0
        Quote: Boa constrictor KAA
        And Nikita did not have to fight with China, posing as a uberkommunisten. Mao was afraid of Mustachioed, but didn’t put Nikita penniless, because He knew how he was dancing in a squat before the Master of the hopak.

        Somehow quickly from the "heights" of textbooks social science of the Khrushchev-Brezhnev spill, you fell to explaining historical events by means of "hopak". The question is, how did it happen that "brothers forever", 2 socialist countries in 5 years turned into principled "Textbooks of social science" did not give an answer to this, and even more so the "hopak" of Khrushchev will not give an answer to this.
        Quote: Boa constrictor KAA
        Well, and how would we be different from them then?

        This is what Khrushchev's thinking is. The enemy prepares to destroy us, surrounds us with military bases, and we answer no, no, since we are for peace and detente, and military bases are "weapons of imperialism."
        Quote: Boa constrictor KAA
        History has no subjunctive mood (c)

        This is true, but it is also true that we must learn from history, learn in order to manage the present and control the future. winners .
        If we do not do this, but we say that evil enemies deceived us, betrayed, imposed "agents of influence", that evil enemies are byaki-beki, and if it were not for them we would have defeated everyone, then we will remain funny losers, we will remain so the vanquished
  11. rica1952
    rica1952 18 December 2015 10: 09
    0
    RF AUGs are not needed, there are no tasks that they would solve. The more recent applications of cruise missiles have shown that any targets at almost any distance are destroyed. Khrushchev was three times right not allowing the development of AUGs.
    1. spravochnik
      spravochnik 18 December 2015 11: 04
      0
      Khrushchev was three times wrong and you followed him. AUG has a huge number of tasks in the Russian Navy. To do this, just simulate a possible war at sea. Which I advise you.
      1. Serg65
        Serg65 18 December 2015 12: 32
        +5
        Quote: spravochnik
        . AUG has a huge number of tasks in the Russian fleet

        what From this moment can be more detailed? I don’t quite understand how the old collective farmer!
      2. max702
        max702 18 December 2015 14: 13
        0
        Write at least one task!
        Quote: spravochnik
        AUG has a huge number of tasks in the Russian Navy.

        At least write about one, preferably reasonably ..
        1. spravochnik
          spravochnik 18 December 2015 15: 34
          +2
          See the podgornovea post above for Soviet aircraft carriers. Plus support and airborne amphibious assault. Well, and the demonstration of the flag, finally.
          1. mav1971
            mav1971 18 December 2015 18: 49
            0
            Quote: spravochnik
            Well, and the demonstration of the flag, finally.


            Can Russian tourists in Thailand or India look like a flag on a beach?
            At the same time, and a demonstration! :)

            Billion times cheaper :)))
            1. spravochnik
              spravochnik 21 December 2015 14: 55
              0
              And less effective at as much
  12. Amurets
    Amurets 18 December 2015 10: 22
    +1
    The article is wonderful! I also think that the conclusions are correct. But the fleet needs to be developed in a comprehensive manner. Because surface and submarine ships are needed. AUG, in modern conditions, it seems to me outdated, but strike ships are needed. It means not so large as aircraft carriers, but carriers of strike weapons.
    1. spravochnik
      spravochnik 18 December 2015 11: 00
      +5
      And what will these strike ships do without air contact ?.
      1. Amurets
        Amurets 18 December 2015 12: 26
        0
        Quote: spravochnik
        And what will these strike ships do without air contact ?.

        There are not many fighter-interceptors at the AUG, air cover is assigned to the SAM and MZA.
        1. spravochnik
          spravochnik 18 December 2015 15: 37
          +1
          I already wrote earlier that in the Soviet Union in the 80 years, they finally abandoned the design of air defense ships, because came to the conclusion that it is IMPOSSIBLE to provide cover for ships with airborne vehicles without the use of aviation.
          1. mav1971
            mav1971 18 December 2015 18: 53
            +1
            Quote: spravochnik
            I already wrote earlier that in the Soviet Union in the 80 years, they finally abandoned the design of air defense ships, because came to the conclusion that it is IMPOSSIBLE to provide cover for ships with airborne vehicles without the use of aviation.


            But the Americans did not refuse ...
            And they now have a full-fledged concept and existing missile defense structure. Based on those same air defense ships.

            Once again I look at what arguments lead some people to prove their theories or theories.
            And once again I am convinced of inertness of thinking, narrow vision and catastrophic inability to predict ...
            1. spravochnik
              spravochnik 21 December 2015 14: 59
              0
              But the Americans did not refuse ...
              And they now have a full-fledged concept and existing missile defense structure. Based on those same air defense ships.

              Once again I look at what arguments lead some people to prove their theories or theories.
              And once again I am convinced of inertness of thinking, narrow vision and catastrophic inability to predict ... [/ quote]

              Did you check its effectiveness in combat conditions? In addition, these ships are under the cover of the same AB.
    2. Maegrom
      Maegrom 18 December 2015 12: 34
      0
      Have you considered the cost of such missile strikes? One thing is the demonstration launch of several missiles and a completely different full-scale operation.
      Missiles have never been used successfully as the main means of destruction of ground targets. Always after the destruction of air defense, the main burden was transferred to aviation.
      How many missiles can RRC launch?
      How many bombs does an aircraft carrier have in its arsenal?
      Or do you want to fight only with nuclear weapons?
      1. Amurets
        Amurets 18 December 2015 13: 49
        +1
        Quote: Maegrom
        Have you considered the cost of such missile strikes? One thing is the demonstration launch of several missiles and a completely different full-scale operation.

        And you count the cost of the Second World War. I didn’t think what the demonstration of the opportunity cost financially, but in moral and psychological terms it completely paid off.
        Quote: Maegrom
        Missiles have never been used successfully as the main means of destruction of ground targets. Always after the destruction of air defense, the main burden was transferred to aviation.

        Always for the final capture and destruction of ground targets used weapons such as ordinary infantry.
        1. Maegrom
          Maegrom 18 December 2015 17: 41
          +1
          1) Money is a convention - resources. How much did the TIGER or Panther cost in resources and man-hours, and how many t34-85 and IP, and produced them, respectively. WWII won, including due to the competent use of available resources.

          2) Give an example when, at least once, as a cover for the same infantry in large operations, missile weapons were successfully used, instead of aviation.
          From 1965 to 1972, the nuclear-powered aircraft carrier Enterprise made six military campaigns in the Southwest Pacific. More than 39 thousand sorties were completed from this aircraft carrier, up to 30 thousand tons of ammunition were spent and 400 mines were set.
          How many RRC would it take to make a comparable strike in six military campaigns?
      2. max702
        max702 18 December 2015 14: 20
        -2
        Quote: Maegrom
        Have you considered the cost of such missile strikes?

        For your information, the cost of ONE missile launched from an airplane taking off from an aircraft carrier was calculated (and absolutely no missile of any type) and its price was at least 7.5mln \ dollars .. That's it ... just calculated ALL and the cost of the ship and the wing and service and maintenance, and that’s the figure in 7.5mln \ dollars .. Calculate how much it will cost one plane flight? So how much is RCC or Caliber worth?
        1. Maegrom
          Maegrom 18 December 2015 18: 05
          +1
          So the tomahawk only bare almost a million worth. And if you take into account the same as yours - how much do we get ship maintenance? And most importantly, what will be the dynamics of changes, given the sharply limited number of missile launches per raid during the intensification of hostilities.
        2. mav1971
          mav1971 18 December 2015 19: 04
          +2
          Quote: max702
          Quote: Maegrom
          Have you considered the cost of such missile strikes?

          For your information, the cost of ONE missile launched from an airplane taking off from an aircraft carrier was calculated (and absolutely no missile of any type) and its price was at least 7.5mln \ dollars .. That's it ... just calculated ALL and the cost of the ship and the wing and service and maintenance, and that’s the figure in 7.5mln \ dollars .. Calculate how much it will cost one plane flight? So how much is RCC or Caliber worth?


          Strange numbers.
          Can you remember the source?
          Maybe it's about Kuzyu?
          Which, if it walks when it is not repaired, then no one flies from it, and if it flies, it does not launch rockets.
          So it will turn out the launch of 3-5 missiles for the year divided by the entire amount of Kuzyu’s content with all the infrastructure.
          With this logic, we have the most expensive gun in the world.
          The king’s gun is called.
          Hundreds of years, hundreds of people spend money on its maintenance.
          if she shoots, her shot will cost billions of dollars.
          Ага.

          In 1996, the life cycle of a nimitz-type aircraft carrier was calculated using the CVX program mentioned here.
          The lifespan is 50 years.
          The cost of maintenance (everything is taken into account, campaigns, flights, shooting, training, repairs, salaries and meals of personnel, etc.) for 50 years, taking into account the cost of construction - 20 billion dollars (in 1996 prices of the year).
          This is 400 million per year. Of these, salary is 40%.
      3. Xsanchez
        Xsanchez 18 December 2015 15: 01
        -1
        The number of NATO Tomahawks is more than 7500. 800 pcs. exponentially.
        The main problem in the carriers of the KR: frigates belong to the "mosquito fleet" and are easily destroyed on the approach to the target both from the air and from under the water. An excellent carrier is a multipurpose nuclear submarine of the "Ash" type. Due to excellent noise characteristics, it does not have analogs in NATO (even "Seawolf" is not a competitor). Moreover, the next nuclear submarine, of the same class, will be even quieter, because of the water jet propellers.
        1. The comment was deleted.
        2. Maegrom
          Maegrom 18 December 2015 18: 06
          0
          Study this operation, please do not mislead people.
          Even in Syria, Russia has dealt at least three times as many hits as you bring.
  13. spravochnik
    spravochnik 18 December 2015 10: 58
    -7
    Article minus. Again bulging submarine fleet. Does the author have the concept of a balanced fleet? In the event of war, the aircraft carrier surface fleet will not be able to stand on the coast. With the modern development of anti-aircraft defense, Russian submarines simply will not be able to deploy in combat areas unless they are covered from the surface and from the air. Without this, they will suffer huge losses. This was well understood in the USSR, which is indirectly confirmed by the large number of built submarines (more than all other opponents combined).
    1. Alex_59
      18 December 2015 11: 44
      +7
      Quote: spravochnik
      Does the concept of a balanced fleet exist for the author?

      Exists. But the article is about what is considered a "balance point"? For the United States, this point is one, for us it is different. Especially for you in the text there is a phrase "the author does not suggest changing aircraft carriers to submarines."

      Quote: spravochnik
      With the modern development of PLO, Russian submarines simply will not be able to deploy in combat areas unless they are covered from the surface and from the air

      And what about the "modern development of PLO"? Operation Atrina showed that the modern anti-aircraft missile system is not so modern.
      1. spravochnik
        spravochnik 18 December 2015 13: 11
        -2
        The balance point is the most efficient use of the cash of the ship. This is with them and with us.
        An operation is an operation, but in the event of a war against our submarines, everything available will be thrown. In addition, since then a lot of water has flowed, and the equipment does not stand still, and the available composition of the submarines is far from the same. So the outcome is completely ambiguous.
        1. max702
          max702 18 December 2015 14: 32
          +1
          Quote: spravochnik
          An operation is an operation, but in the event of a war against our submarines, everything available will be thrown.

          Perfectly! And on our part, nothing will be done by itself! All the same, absolutely everything will go! Yes, including nuclear weapons, or are you for some hypothetical reason not considering this? In conflicts of such a scale (when nuclear submarines are destroyed) the use of nuclear weapons is MANDATORY! Moreover, on both sides, if we did not have nuclear weapons, the war would have started 50-60 years ago and this is a fact! Or do you think that some of the country's leadership, both military and civilian, amuse themselves with the illusions of the possibility of victory by non-nuclear forces in the war with NATO and other hangers-on, so I remind you that even with China the USSR did not consider war without the use of nuclear weapons! And NATO of the times of the USSR was clearly more dangerous than China at that time. U could even defeat the strategy in the event of a full-blown conflict, and cause unacceptable damage to the enemy in order to deprive this military conflict of meaning and force the enemy to act by other means .. NATO has a completely different goal that is not universal nuclear ashes and the seizure of material assets for their further development, respectively, and the tools for solving this problem are different!
          1. spravochnik
            spravochnik 18 December 2015 14: 57
            +1
            That’s what I’m saying that you have to give up everything. Just what can we quit ?. This is what we need to have and a powerful surface fleet, which includes ships of all classes.
            1. mav1971
              mav1971 18 December 2015 19: 13
              +1
              Quote: spravochnik
              That’s what I’m saying that you have to give up everything. Just what can we quit ?. This is what we need to have and a powerful surface fleet, which includes ships of all classes.


              Where is the money, Zin? (c) Vysotsky
      2. kote119
        kote119 18 December 2015 13: 16
        +1
        Quote: Alex_59
        And what about the "modern development of PLO"? Operation Atrina showed that the modern anti-aircraft missile system is not so modern.

        You will remember in what year the operation "Atrina" was carried out
    2. Sailor
      Sailor 18 December 2015 16: 32
      +3
      Unambiguously + the article, the author just without excesses revealed the situation on the submarine (we went over Serdyukov-Medvedev with his Mistrals), which according to the plans of that war (fortunately failed) were for us an ace in the sleeve of the sea. One depressing, that in the flesh until the 90s, we served the first generation nuclear submarines and submarines up to 1 projects that do not meet the requirements of that time. What I do not agree with the author is that AB is needed neither 877-1, but 2-4 and of course with accompaniment, but it will not be soon.
    3. mav1971
      mav1971 18 December 2015 19: 10
      +1
      Quote: spravochnik
      Article minus. Again bulging submarine fleet. Does the concept of a balanced fleet exist for the author?


      the author said that the blind people did not see.
      He said that we will not be able to maintain 4-5 balanced fleets, similar to US-NATO.
      neither due to economic, nor due to geographical location.
      Are you able to realize this?
      Is there gray matter?
      Does hell talk about black caviar when salaries are enough only for capelin caviar?

      Threat. why Kavyar wrote - yes because I see black caviar only in such banks.
  14. Anton Gavrilov
    Anton Gavrilov 18 December 2015 11: 21
    +1
    Everything is far from so simple. In terms of the number of submarines, we were approximately equal, but in terms of quality and the same infrastructure ...

    Our submarines were inferior to the enemy: in stealth, range, quality and capabilities of a torpedo weapon, quality and capabilities of strategic missiles (until the late 2 generation boats armed with Sineva and Liner.)

    There were a lot of extremely dubious experiments, extremely dubious projects in their need (project 705, project 661,941).

    We relied on quantity, not quality. And in the event of war, that would be like a hitch to us.

    So with the submarines we had far from order
    1. spravochnik
      spravochnik 18 December 2015 11: 37
      +2
      No, we had significantly more boats. Even outdated projects were not withdrawn from the fleet. It is in order to push the enemy in quantity. As for projects 705, 661, I do not agree with you. 661 - an experimental submarine, on which new ideas were tested, which were in demand on the following projects. 705 - an outstanding submarine, ahead of its time. And if it were not for the notorious coastal infrastructure, they would have served the fleet for a long time.
      1. Alex_59
        18 December 2015 11: 59
        +4
        Quote: Anton Gavrilov
        We relied on quantity, not quality
        Do you judge the quality as an emergency worker or not? I haven’t built a submarine, I can’t judge for sure. Both they and us had accidents. Yes, we were chasing quantity. But I just can't imagine that Gorshkov waved his hand and said, "Oh, build as you want, even from cardboard, the main thing is more." So let's not judge what we don't know.

        Quote: spravochnik
        It is in order to push the enemy in quantity

        Are there any generals who refuse voluntarily numerical superiority before the battle?
        Quote: spravochnik
        No, we had significantly more boats.

        More than anyone? What is the US? Yes! And more than NATO + Japan? Not! The USSR did not compete with the USA alone, this is the problem.
        1. Anton Gavrilov
          Anton Gavrilov 18 December 2015 12: 39
          +1
          Do you judge the quality as an emergency worker or not? I haven’t built a submarine, I can’t judge for sure. Both they and us had accidents. Yes, we were chasing quantity. But I just can't imagine that Gorshkov waved his hand and said, "Oh, build as you want, even from cardboard, the main thing is more." So let's not judge what we don't know.


          Quality is technical specifications and capabilities, and the fact that we were inferior to them is no secret.

          On the account of quantity. The sense of such a number of boats, if they were inferior to the enemy? The sense of such a number of boats, if there was a low KOH? The sense of such a number of boats, if the Far East did not have the infrastructure capable of repairing and modernizing such a number of boats, and they quickly Herili, what happened in 90 in droves?

          By the way, quality and reliability are slightly different things. The first generation was in any way more reliable with the enemies, but the second and third were almost no worse for us, the ships were very reliable.

          Here are just on the first knee so many people we ruined ....
          1. spravochnik
            spravochnik 18 December 2015 13: 31
            +1
            There is no sense from this. They, by their number, will overload the capabilities of the PLO of the likely enemy and some amount of them will break through and carry out the combat mission. That is why we until the last kept the submarine in the fleet. Look, when the last submarines pr.613, 641, 651, 627, 675 were written off. I'm not talking about 667 and 671, which are still floating.
            1. kote119
              kote119 18 December 2015 14: 25
              0
              this is how do you overload an enemy plane with boats that are welded to the piers?
              1. spravochnik
                spravochnik 18 December 2015 17: 11
                +1
                This is not about the current state, but about 70-, 80-, early 90-. The current amount certainly will not overload any PLO.
          2. Alex_59
            18 December 2015 14: 23
            +1
            Quote: Anton Gavrilov
            Quality is specifications and features.
            OK. Misunderstood "quality" as "reliability".

            Quote: Anton Gavrilov
            What is the sense of such a number of boats if there was a low KOH? What is the sense of such a number of boats if the Far East did not have the infrastructure capable of repairing and modernizing such a number of boats, and they were quickly cared for, what happened in 90 in droves?
            KOH was lower than that of the Americans. That's for sure. The infrastructure is, yes, imperfect. Didn't I write about this in the article? There is a whole section about infrastructure. In the "Conclusions" I also made a reservation that the ways of development of the underwater direction were not chosen optimal. However, this does not mean that the underwater direction was mistakenly chosen as the main one. This suggests that the implementation methods were chosen with errors. And this is a topic for a separate study.
        2. spravochnik
          spravochnik 18 December 2015 13: 26
          -4
          NATO and Japan, actually in different maritime theaters.
          1. Alex_59
            18 December 2015 14: 27
            0
            Quote: spravochnik
            NATO and Japan, actually in different maritime theaters.

            US member of NATO? Does the US have a Pacific coast? Why is it Japan and NATO then in different theaters?
            1. spravochnik
              spravochnik 18 December 2015 17: 14
              +1
              The USA is generally a separate song. By NATO, I meant the European component.
              1. Alex_59
                18 December 2015 20: 00
                +1
                Quote: spravochnik
                By NATO, I meant the European component

                You are the first in the world who under NATO understands only the European component. However, in general, the level of your thinking is clear.
                1. Per se.
                  Per se. 19 December 2015 08: 04
                  +2
                  Quote: Alex_59
                  You are the first in the world who under NATO understands only the European component.
                  If you do not exaggerate, then the North Atlantic Alliance has, first of all, if not a purely European, then it is the Atlantic component. The alliance's area of ​​responsibility includes the territories of the member states of the bloc (with the exception of the USA, Canada and France) and the islands belonging to them, the waters of the North, Irish, Norwegian, Baltic, Mediterranean, Black and Azov Seas, zones of the straits - Baltic, Black Sea, Gibraltar, The English Channel, the North Atlantic Ocean (north of the Tropic of Cancer), and the airspace above them. Of course, we can talk about expanding the geographic scope of the involvement of NATO forces beyond its zone of responsibility to the DPRK, India, the states of North Africa and the Horn of Africa, but this is somewhat different. Blockade schemes for our fleets have been known since Soviet times, from historically traditional for the Black Sea and the Baltic, to later ones, where blocking the Northern Fleet is considered with the involvement of significant forces of the Alliance, and the Pacific, mainly with the involvement of the Japanese and US navies. You, Alexey, have made a good article, the majority agree with you. However, if we talk about the USSR fleet, it is necessary to separate periods that are far from unambiguous, both in terms of assessing the role of the fleet and in terms of its component. Let the work of V.P. Kuzin and V.I.Nikolsky "Soviet Navy 1945-1991." fundamental, but not a verdict. If the Soviet Union had not perished, our fleet would have acquired more harmonious forms, but you make assessments at extremes. The extreme and the notion of the current situation as eternal, Russia is a rich and strong enough country to claim more. If we initially give the initiative, take as a basis the fact that we cannot have a strong fleet, nothing good will come of it. You, it seems, are not against one or two aircraft carriers, the role of surface ships, but in fact you advocate the development of only the submarine fleet, you recognize some insurmountable inferiority that can only be compensated somehow. Your understanding of the "maritime powers" on warm ports ... Norway was extremely important in the war at sea, but its ports, far from "Sevastopol", our North is the facade of Russia, and its coastline, albeit with ice, is an important part our national interests and our national security, which cannot be solved without the fleet. It is not a matter of quantity, whether it be aircraft carriers, submarines or missile boats, but of the ability or impossibility to solve all the tasks of the fleet at sea, both in wartime and in peacetime. For this, the fleet must be full-fledged, not hypertrophied. Moreover, it depends not to a small extent on how the fleet solves its tasks in peacetime whether it comes to war. Of course, this is just my opinion, my modest "level of thinking".
                2. spravochnik
                  spravochnik 21 December 2015 15: 16
                  -1
                  By scribbling such articles, you think your level of thinking is much higher.
        3. spravochnik
          spravochnik 18 December 2015 17: 55
          0
          More than anyone? What is the US? Yes! And more than NATO + Japan? Not! The USSR did not compete with the USA alone, this is the problem.


          Perhaps more. In 1989, the USSR had 450 submarines, of which 196 were nuclear. So consider it.
          1. Alex_59
            18 December 2015 20: 02
            0
            Quote: spravochnik
            At 1989 the year of the USSR had 450 submarines

            Why 450 and not 100500? Having fun, duck in a big way. Why trifle?

            Even the directory The Military Balance for the 1991 year does not cite such enchanting figures for the USSR.
            1. Scraptor
              Scraptor 19 December 2015 14: 42
              -1
              Why, with so many AB submarines with a supersonic air wing, not a single one? Not one at all? Not a single one at all?

              I can answer right away - in order for this to be a funny navy, to melt which in the event of a serious collision, even before the hunchback would not constitute any problems.
            2. spravochnik
              spravochnik 21 December 2015 15: 08
              0
              Well, read with Pavlov, for example.
            3. spravochnik
              spravochnik 21 December 2015 15: 12
              0
              Because only DEPL was 245. Moreover, due to the fact that the fleets were frankly old boats. For example, pr. 613, 633, 651, 641, 641B and so on. Submarines served until complete wear and tear. Although this also applied to the Tax Code, how many served Kr pr. 26, 68, EM pr. 30, 56.
      2. Amurets
        Amurets 18 December 2015 12: 43
        +1
        Quote: spravochnik
        705 - an outstanding submarine, ahead of its time. And if it were not for the notorious coastal infrastructure, they would have served the fleet for a long time.

        I agree with you. But there was also the opportunity to replace the liquid metal reactor with a water-water reactor. Such a possibility was provided for by the project, these were boats of project 705D. While preserving that equipment and automation. You are right, boats of the 705th project were outstanding. And the difficulties of operating boats with heavy iron ore showed experimental K-27 project 645.
        1. spravochnik
          spravochnik 18 December 2015 13: 17
          +1
          Yes, the project was, but it was not quite that boat. Outstanding qualities of 705 were provided precisely by the reactor. It was more compact and lighter than VVR and faster gaining power. A coastal service with due attention could be provided.
          1. Amurets
            Amurets 18 December 2015 13: 34
            +1
            Quote: spravochnik
            A coastal service with due attention could be provided.

            I mentioned the 645 project for good reason. The boat was experimental in order to gain experience in operating the NMR and creating coastal service bases, but unfortunately you are right, nothing was done. And the boats with the NMR required two crews: the main and the base.
            1. kote119
              kote119 18 December 2015 14: 31
              +1
              Quote: Amurets
              And boats with heavy metals required two crews: the main and the base.

              Before, nuclear crews had technical crews not only on 705 ave.
              1. spravochnik
                spravochnik 18 December 2015 17: 13
                0
                The nuclear submarines now have two interchangeable crews.
                1. kote119
                  kote119 18 December 2015 17: 34
                  -1
                  I wrote about the technical crew, the fact that now there are second crews is understandable
      3. Anton Gavrilov
        Anton Gavrilov 18 December 2015 12: 43
        +1
        Sho 661, sho 705 extremely controversial projects.

        661 - an experimental submarine on which new ideas were tested that were in demand on the following projects
        The 661 was no longer a running ship since the mid-80. By and large, the ship lasted only a dozen and a half years, it was at an unbelievable cost. It was unique — we had nothing of the kind in the Navy.

        Yes, and what are the ideas, if not a secret? When issuing TK, a strict ban on the use of previously worked out technical solutions was given, from it practically nothing went to our other boats of the 2-th knee.
        1. spravochnik
          spravochnik 18 December 2015 13: 23
          +1
          Hello my dear. And here the ban, it was introduced for that, so that new technical solutions appeared. What does it mean nothing went, please: titanium hulls and the technology of their construction, anti-ship missiles with underwater launch, hydroacoustics and other on-board equipment, a new hull form (see pr.949, for example), etc.
          1. kote119
            kote119 18 December 2015 14: 33
            0
            Quote: spravochnik
            new body shape (see project 949, for example)

            But what is the shape of the case 949 pr differs from the rest? but the strong case 661 pr was in the bow made in the form of a figure eight.
            1. spravochnik
              spravochnik 18 December 2015 17: 19
              +1
              And you look at the drawings. He has a specific form for a two-shaft boat, and this was worked out on 661. And the Germans exchanged a sturdy hull in the shape of an eight for boats of the XXI series, and then we went on pr.611.
              1. kote119
                kote119 18 December 2015 17: 37
                -1
                the strong case is the same as that of the single shaft, no difference
                1. spravochnik
                  spravochnik 18 December 2015 18: 00
                  +1
                  Where is this single-shaft you will see such a form? And the two-shaft up to 661 such stern was not.
                  1. kote119
                    kote119 18 December 2015 18: 56
                    -1
                    I wrote to you about a durable case, in the figure we see a lightweight case, this is firstly, and secondly, that it is unusual, well, maybe the screws are out
                    1. spravochnik
                      spravochnik 21 December 2015 15: 20
                      0
                      And I wrote about the easy one. Typical stern of a twin-shaft submarine.
  15. Murad05
    Murad05 18 December 2015 12: 03
    +1
    But they managed in a short time they were able to create one of the branches of the nuclear triad - a powerful nuclear submarine flotilla, for which it was difficult to find equals. Great still was a superpower!
    1. Maegrom
      Maegrom 18 December 2015 12: 37
      0
      Not so short, with the times of the mobilization of economies since World War II can not be compared.
  16. Wolka
    Wolka 18 December 2015 12: 31
    -3
    a modern carrier of the 21st century, in fact, it is a floating universal base-nuclear-powered ship in appearance resembling a typical raft of a catamaran type, in the niche of which there are one or two mini-submarines of operational-tactical purpose, in the side modules of the hangar for accommodating aircraft and helicopters, a CPU, workshops, a mini hospital, premises for accommodating personnel, as well as compartments for placing power plants, etc ...
  17. Nazaroff
    Nazaroff 18 December 2015 12: 31
    +1
    The article is a plus. The author has laid out everything correctly. In the General Staff of the USSR, they were also not fools and understood everything perfectly. One of the drawbacks of the Soviet submarine, it was a bunch of different submarine projects. Especially multipurpose. With its pros and cons. That did not have a very good effect on the operation and maintenance of the ships. It was necessary to "churn out" two or three projects that would have absorbed the best achievements of the design thought of that time. For example - "Antey" and "Pike". One as a strike cruiser, the other as a hunter. Something like this.
  18. uge.garik
    uge.garik 18 December 2015 12: 37
    +2
    ... The main deterrent from the attack is the guaranteed and inevitable destruction of the aggressor .. and this is primary, and by what and how - this is secondary ...
  19. max702
    max702 18 December 2015 14: 10
    +1
    Quote: Scraptor
    Is it really so? And they do not oppose each other with all the other Navy, but complement each other!

    All other Navy are NATO Navy about what the author in the article indicates! There are no other naval forces that would solve truly global tasks (it’s not necessary to talk about China, that’s a completely different matter) Accordingly, the tasks that they solve are perfectly integrated into the NATO doctrine, the fleet of the USSR / Russia has completely different tasks, as described in the article ..
    1. Scraptor
      Scraptor 18 December 2015 18: 18
      +1
      And why only decided to quote it? bully
      If you don’t need to talk about China and NATO with ASEAN, then maybe carrier-based India, Brazil will do? In Thailand, this is AB, but the submarine is not. Not even non-nuclear.
      The article says it wrong. A global non-naval fleet, apart from its coastal air bases, cannot solve global problems.
      Do not distort the essence of the fleet with the doctrine "scientifically".
  20. Arikkhab
    Arikkhab 18 December 2015 14: 20
    +1
    excellent article ... well-grounded .... unlike O. Kaptsov - "let's build battleships" ... and "battleships are our everything" ....
  21. Alexey RA
    Alexey RA 18 December 2015 14: 50
    +2
    Thus, an AB in combat readiness costs 7,8 the cost of a “missile-armed submarine” at current prices. Instead of 2,44 for the calculations given by Kuzin and Nikolsky. Perhaps this ratio will not be fair for the Soviet period of history, because the relative cost of aircraft was lower.

    Ahem ... that is, you seriously suggest calculating the comparative cost Soviet AB and PLA based on the ratio of the cost of the most expensive American AB and budget American is ICAPL? belay

    The problem is that in the Soviet fleet, SSGNs are not SSNS with tomahawk launchers attached to it. The Soviet hypothetical AV should be compared with the pr.949, which are much larger and more expensive. And the Soviet Navy AV itself would have been smaller than the Nimitz.

    Actually, uv.Exeter has long given calculations on the cost of an alternative program for the construction of Soviet AV - instead of TARKR, SSGN, MRA, large BOD and other "asymmetric responses" of the USSR. And for the total cost of the Soviet fleet and its efficiency:
    I completely agree with the K & N calculations that the USSR after WWII spent 1,5 times more money on the fleet only on ships of the main classes than the USA. This roughly coincides with my estimates. The result is obvious - by the end of the 80s, huge loose, loosely coupled, narrowly targeted and fairly passive in nature forces, something like a kind of hypertrophied coastal defense of an enlarged Marquise puddle, giving the main water areas of the World Ocean to the enemy. Which will use these waters against us.
    1. Lt. Air Force stock
      Lt. Air Force stock 18 December 2015 15: 56
      0
      Quote: Alexey RA
      Actually, uv.Exeter has long given calculations on the cost of an alternative program for the construction of Soviet AV - instead of TARKR, SSGN, MRA, large BOD and other "asymmetric responses" of the USSR. And for the total cost of the Soviet fleet and its efficiency:

      We needed a domestic version of Arly Burke, but decided to separately build anti-submarine ships (small and large), missile ships (small and large).
      Money in Soviet times, why not curtail these projects and cost dozens of our berks?
      1. spravochnik
        spravochnik 18 December 2015 17: 23
        +1
        Did not make it. Also came to universal ships. The first was pr. 11551, but then the Union collapsed.
        1. Lt. Air Force stock
          Lt. Air Force stock 18 December 2015 18: 04
          +1
          Quote: spravochnik
          The first was pr. 11551, but then the Union collapsed.

          If I’m not mistaken, the United States began developing the Ticonderoga back in the 70s (the first ship was laid down in 1978). Why didn’t you? Why didn’t we develop our project in parallel?
          Project 11551 is a large anti-submarine ship, there is no universality there.
          Armament:
          Artillery 2x1 100 mm AU AK-100 (1200 rounds)
          2x1 45 mm 21-KM
          Anti-aircraft artillery 4x6 ZAK AK-630
          Missile weapons 2 SAM "Dagger" (64 SAM)
          Antisubmarine armament 2x4 PU PLUR "Rastrub-B" (8 PLUR 85-RU)
          2x12 213 mm RBU-6000
          Mine-torpedo armament 2x4 533 mm TA PTA-53-1155 (8 torpedoes 53-65K, SET-65 or PLUR 83RN)
          Aviation group 2 of the Ka-27PL helicopter

          There is essentially no air defense (only near radius), no anti-ship missiles, no missiles to attack ground targets. On Arly Burke, 96 universal launchers can be installed in any proportion of different missiles.
          1. spravochnik
            spravochnik 21 December 2015 15: 28
            +1
            You confuse pr. 1155 and pr. 11551. These are completely different ships.
            Here is his performance characteristics.
            Displacement (surface / underwater): 8900 t
            Dimensions:
            length - 163.5 m
            width - 19.3 m
            draft - 7,5 m
            Speed: 28 Knots
            Navigation range:
            over water - 4000 miles
            Powerplant: GTU 4x24300 hp
            Armament: 2x4 "Mosquito" missile launcher, 8x1 "Dagger" launcher (64 missiles), 2 "Kortik" launchers, 2x2 130-mm AK-130 guns, 2x4 533-mm TA, 2x12 RBU-6000 (96 RSB-60 ), 2 Ka-27 helicopters
            Crew: 249 people. (29 officers)

            Large anti-submarine ship pr. 11551 "Admiral Chabanenko"
            May 24, 1987 enlisted in the lists of the Navy ships and in 1990 laid down at the Yantar Baltic shipyard in Kaliningrad, launched on December 14, 1992. On January 28, 1999 it entered service and became a part of the Federation Council.

            There were many other projects.
      2. Alexey RA
        Alexey RA 18 December 2015 18: 44
        0
        Quote: Lt. air force reserve
        We needed a domestic version of Arly Burke, but decided to separately build anti-submarine ships (small and large), missile ships (small and large).

        Yeah ... because when they tried to build a universal anti-submarine strike ship, they received either 1164, or even 1144. smile

        Besides, in order to build "Burke" - you need a UVP. Moreover, it is universal - for PLUR, SAM and KR. And we have each design bureau designed by someone in what way. Some water-filled inclined PU Granites at 1144 and 1143.5 are worth something.

        Well, for the domestic "Burke" it would have to sacrifice one of the main features of Soviet ships - maximum autonomy and independence of weapons systems.
    2. Scraptor
      Scraptor 18 December 2015 19: 05
      -4
      The author deliberately misleads on prices, in fact
      The cost of nimitsa with a displacement of 100 thousand tons is 2,2 billion
      The cost of Ohio with a displacement of 17 thousand tons is 1,5 billion
      all in 1980 prices
      For the presence of the boat and enough Peter the Great with two MANPADS on deck

      Further plucking an air wing (which can also be based on land at the airport) and especially an escort that can go separately as ordinary NKs, he seems to have decided to become the absolute record holder for pulling on a globe.
      But the cost of BRs to Ohio should be added on the contrary, because they can only be used from it.

      With the advent of air homing missiles and convertiplanes, aircraft carriers did not need to be made large (more precisely, there was no need for them at all). Nepali Thai 11tys. tons worth only 335 million in 1995 dollars. This is somewhere at the price of a dozen Sushka, and even they can be based on such a little less.
    3. Alex_59
      18 December 2015 20: 09
      +2
      Quote: Alexey RA
      Ahem ... that is, you seriously suggest calculating the comparative cost of Soviet AV and PLA based on the ratio of the cost of the most expensive American AB and budget American ICAPL?

      Nuuuu .... Partly agree. But I made a reservation in the article that this is difficult to do. I suggested such an option. I am not saying that it is perfect.
      But you also have excesses. Virginia all the same does not pull on the BUDGETARY CAPL. Secondly, the Soviet SSGN is not only 949, it is also 670. So the "average" Soviet SSGN at a price will be less than 949. How much - but fig knows it. This was not known even in the USSR with its mysterious pricing.
      1. Scraptor
        Scraptor 19 December 2015 17: 41
        +1
        I propose this option - to war without hiding in the trenches without air defense, also without air defense, as it is absent on a nuclear submarine which is under water at any time detected from an airplane or NK by active sonar laughing
      2. Alexey RA
        Alexey RA 21 December 2015 10: 22
        0
        Quote: Alex_59
        But you have excesses too. Virginia still does not pull on the BUDGET ICAPL

        Nuuu ... it was originally a budget - against the background of "Seawulf". smile
        Quote: Alex_59
        Secondly, the Soviet SSGN is not only 949, it is also 670. So the "average" Soviet SSGN will cost less than 949.

        Judging by the results of studies of attacks on the AUG repeatedly voiced at the VIF, the 670s should be added to the 949th. For they had to attack AUG together.
        Also. SSGN in the USSR was built three times more than could be built AB: 17 SSGN pr. 670 / 670M and 13 949 / 949A. So you need to compare the Soviet AB with three SSGNs.
        1. Alex_59
          21 December 2015 12: 28
          0
          Quote: Alexey RA
          Judging by the results of studies of attacks on AUGs repeatedly voiced at the VIF, 670s should be added to 949s.

          We consider the "arithmetic average price" of the average Soviet SSGN. Let's say the 670th is 0,5 of the 949th. Then (13x1 + 17 * 0,5) / 30 = 0,7
          It turns out that the average price of one SSGN is less than 949 by 30%.
          This is of course very rude, I do not claim that these calculations are correct.
          Quote: Alexey RA
          So you need to compare the Soviet AB with three SSGNs.
          I’m not sure yet in this ratio. Too much is needed for AB to get hold of. And aviation, and nazmenaya infrastructure. For submarines all this is needed less.
  22. Alexey RA
    Alexey RA 18 December 2015 14: 59
    +2
    For the PL, on the contrary, the problem of a breakthrough was not so acute, because even today, the discovery of the PL in the open ocean remains a problem with many unpredictable factors. Even the most advanced means of PLO are not able to track the submarine for a long time and guarantee its destruction.

    It's funny ... but the Soviet Navy just considered the problem of a submarine breakthrough into the Atlantic as one of the main ones. And every year she became sharper.
    Because between the bases of our nuclear submarines and the open ocean there were several ABL boundaries: the North Cape - Bear Island, Faroe-Shetland and Shetland-Iceland. Plus stationary sonar surveillance and detection systems in the Atlantic.

    Not from a good life, our explored route around Greenland.

    By the way, in the same "Atrina" our submarines at the first stage were completely tracked by NATO submarines. In a real war, they would not have had time to get lost in the Atlantic ...
    1. Alex_59
      18 December 2015 20: 13
      +1
      Quote: Alexey RA
      It's funny ... but the Soviet Navy just considered the problem of a submarine breakthrough into the Atlantic as one of the main ones. And every year she became sharper.

      All right. The breakthrough through SOSUS is very difficult. But it is still possible. But the breakthrough of the Soviet aircraft carrier in the Atlantic would have ended in the Norwegian Sea. Too noticeable goal. So all the salt is in comparison. And so - no one says that the submariners will be easy and they will not die, or will shoot at targets as if in a dash. It never happens that way.
      1. Scraptor
        Scraptor 19 December 2015 14: 37
        +1
        It's funny that the breakthrough of the submarine in wartime, too. Therefore, NK and AB, among them, are also deployed in peacetime in advance.
        1. Operator
          Operator 19 December 2015 20: 11
          0
          In wartime, all the lines of the PLO in the Atlantic will be rendered inoperable by nuclear strikes, after which the submarines from the Arctic Ocean will be undiscovered to the Atlantic.

          The accuracy of the decommissioned SOSUS was plus or minus bast (+ - 100 miles), which is why the search for nuclear submarines was actually performed by connections of surface ships, including aircraft carriers. With the simultaneous breakthrough of more than eleven submarines (more than in the presence of aircraft carriers), the twelfth and subsequent submarines have an 100-percent opportunity to pass into the Atlantic unnoticed.

          At the same time, the use of fourth-generation submarines of the Seawolf type at low speeds generally nullifies the capabilities of a stationary hydrophone system like SOSUS.

          If the connection of surface ships with the help of active sonars at a distance of two to three hundred miles is still lucky enough to detect a nuclear submarine with several dozen self-guided supersonic cruise missiles equipped with nuclear warheads, you can immediately write off this ship am
          1. Scraptor
            Scraptor 19 December 2015 21: 50
            +2
            What nuclear strikes? In the straits between Greenland and Iceland, and so on? Over which go the aircraft and NK enemy and stupidly echolocate everything?
            Whence about accuracy and about zeroing it?
            And how many planes and helicopters on NK on each aircraft carrier?
            In fact, there is nothing to protect the submarines from anti-submarine aviation, it does not even have an air defense system.
            1. Operator
              Operator 19 December 2015 22: 32
              -2
              An anti-submarine line is a specific area of ​​the ocean where ship formations, including aircraft carriers, graze. Atlantic anti-submarine lines are located within the range of Tu-22 reconnaissance aircraft. In addition, one "looking" submarine can be attached to each connection.

              This means that before a massive breakthrough of the rest of the submarines into the Atlantic during the war period, the coordinates of each compound will be known and it will always be possible to deliver a preemptive strike with nuclear supersonic cruise missiles that will hatch the largest ship in the warrant - the aircraft carrier.

              Also known are the coordinates of stationary objects entering the boundaries of PLO - stations for landfall of hydrophone systems and airfields based on anti-submarine aircraft. After nuclear strikes, radioactive craters with a diameter of several hundred meters are formed in their place.

              And the submarine submarine connections that remain without aircraft cover can be managed by themselves, since the radius of audibility of the propellers of the destroyers is much larger than the radii of audibility of propellers of the fourth-generation submarines.

              Well, the cherry on the cake - judging by the increasing press reports, undersea diesel-electric drones (several orders of magnitude cheaper than submarines) with underwater autonomy 3-4 of days that completely imitate submarines are being intensively developed in our country and abroad. If not 100 underwater vehicles, but, say, 1000 (900 drones and 100 nuclear submarines) approach the frontier of PLO in peacetime, NATO fleets will not have enough surface ships and aircraft to track everyone.

              Considering the rearmament of shock submarines by cruise missiles (operating along the coast), they become a universal weapon, many times cheaper and more invincible than aircraft carriers.
              1. Scraptor
                Scraptor 20 December 2015 11: 48
                +1
                Quote: Operator
                Anti-submarine boundary - a specific area of ​​the ocean,

                Going to bomb the Ocean?

                IT IS THE TIME FOR AMAZING STORIES! laughing
                Su-24 or Tu-22 - is it all the same, or will they have some sort of fighter escort in Atlantic? And how do they even get into this Alanika?
                The submarine will not see anything from under the water. They will find and then destroy it by 10 times the radius.
                Homing missiles for interference homing well and basic aviation is in the form of flying boats.

                You leave the life of the Navy without air cover ... The most dangerous enemy of a nuclear submarine is aviation, any vessel with a helicopter will crush it with impunity.

                Even the anti-submarine "Invincible" is several times cheaper than a nuclear submarine with a larger water displacement. The supercarrier is only 2-3 times more expensive than it with a much larger displacement. And in contrast to sea-based aviation, nuclear-powered submarines have no universality.
                1. Operator
                  Operator 20 December 2015 14: 59
                  -3
                  You probably do not perceive the Russian language - it is not the ocean that is "bombed", but the components of a specific NATO anti-submarine line: surface ship formations, airfields of anti-submarine aircraft and ground-based hydrophone curtains.
                  The connections of surface ships at the turn of the PLO are in the range of reconnaissance aircraft Tu-22, the coordinates of the airfields and ground structures are known in advance.
                  And then - it is the United States that is bombing, while the Russian Federation has Caliber cruise missiles (range with a nuclear warhead of 2500 km) and Kh-101 (range with a nuclear warhead of 5500 km).

                  As for the danger to aviation submarines, you have peacetime views, such as a helicopter with a range of 100 km, flying and detecting submarines by submersible radar. This happens only on the teachings. In wartime, the submarine will be the first to detect a ship’s connection for more than 100 miles and hit it with supersonic cruise missiles. Nothing will take off.

                  And with the cost, you are greatly mistaken - the cost of the entire connection of ships, plus the cost of deck aircraft is more than an order of magnitude more expensive than one submarine.

                  What is a "supercarrier" in your understanding (like "Gerald R. Ford" worth 20 billion dollars, along with carrier-based aircraft)? So one Russian attack nuclear submarine is twenty times cheaper.

                  Another time: the shock submarine, armed with cruise missiles, is a universal weapon of the Navy - destroys sea, land and air targets in the form of carrier-based aircraft on board ship carriers.

                  Although I admit that nuclear submarines cannot shoot down missiles and satellites, well, so submarines are not on the staff of the VKS laughing
                  1. Scraptor
                    Scraptor 20 December 2015 16: 18
                    -1
                    And you are definitely busy here twisting the brains insinuating the opposite. laughing

                    Tu-22s simply won’t go to the Atlantic in wartime, and carrier-based aircraft in active search will find and drown the nuclear submarine 10 times farther than its 100 mile. And the nuclear submarine, which has no means of defense, will not be able to protect itself from this.

                    Why do we need to consider the cost of the entire connection of ships, and what kind of ships in the connection? You do not add the cost of Russian NKs to the cost of Russian nuclear submarines? laughing
                    Quote: Operator
                    one Russian strike submarine is twenty times cheaper.

                    already at 6-8 and 20? laughing
                    The cost of nimitsa with a displacement of 100 thousand tons is 2,2 billion
                    The cost of Ohio with a displacement of 17 thousand tons is 1,5 billion
                    all in 1980 prices
                    The cost of "Invincible" with a displacement of 22 thousand tons is 0,3 billion

                    Quote: Operator
                    Another time: the shock submarine, armed with cruise missiles, is a universal weapon of the Navy - destroys sea, land and air targets in the form of carrier-based aircraft on board ship carriers.
                    Although I admit that nuclear submarines cannot shoot down missiles and satellites, well, so submarines are not on the staff of the VKS

                    For the third time to you - she cannot bring down anything air at all, she does not have an air defense system. If even suddenly the submarine hits an airplane from something of a MANPADS-like short range, then it will detect itself and the next airplane or helicopter will sink it for sure.
                    1. Operator
                      Operator 20 December 2015 20: 40
                      -2
                      Tu-22 no need to pass into the Atlantic, it is enough to fly to the line of the PLO and give target indication to surface ships in its composition.

                      What you are at a tenfold range of action of carrier-based aviation got stuck, the figures show - the longer the linear range, the larger the quadratic search area of ​​the submarine.

                      Attack submarines operate without cover by surface ships, and aircraft carriers and helicopter carriers - only with cover. Therefore, in the second case, the cost of the carrier vessel should be added to the cost of the escort.

                      Look at the title of the article - "Looking Ahead". It is necessary to operate not with the cost of AB "Nimitz" from 1975 shaggy year, but the cost of AB "Gerald R. Ford" from 2016. The cost of the Severodvinsk strike nuclear submarine in 2014 is 47 billion rubles.

                      We are talking about the same thing: well, nuclear submarines cannot knock down detour vehicles, moreover, it doesn’t need it.
                      1. Scraptor
                        Scraptor 20 December 2015 22: 57
                        0
                        Will they give him over Belarus? Or on the Kirkenes meridian?

                        The aircraft is looking for a submarine in a segment, in an arc. Especially in such "narrows" as the anti-submarine line in the North Atlantic.

                        Nuclear submarines do not operate without cover by their fighter aircraft, but are quickly found and drowned with impunity by anti-submarine aircraft of the enemy - this is what you need.
                        NK escort can operate limitedly without AB therefore their cost is not added.
                        Brains do not need to compost people. There was a comparison of Nimitz with Ohio and with Illustries in the prices of the same year. A ton of submarine displacement is always no less than five times more expensive than NK, because the submarine is much more complex and stressful design. The only means of defense is stealth. If it is discovered, then it is destroyed, and they are now discovered very well.

                        Judging by the way you write to her, you don't need to shoot down satellites and missiles! Missiles are drowned in NC or destroyed in ICBM silos in North Dakota or together with the Cape Canaveral launch site wassat And anti-submarine aircraft probably do not need it because anti-submarine torpedoes and deep bombs will be removed by some sort of magic.
                        You write that the submarine can do everything universally, but in reality it is drowned just like killing fish with dynamite using an echo sounder.
                        You do this so that the Navy can’t do anything and as many submariners as possible die under water.
                        In the Second World War one traitor was needed at the headquarters of Zap. the front in order to deprive the Army of aviation on June 22, and here it is not necessary to deprive it, because everything is already deprived of your wrecking efforts in advance.
                        I suppose people still do not understand what are you doing here with your friends?
                      2. Operator
                        Operator 21 December 2015 00: 27
                        -1
                        In the narrow zones of the type of PLO boundary in the North Atlantic at the Kirkines meridian in time of war, coast-based aircraft of the Tu-22 type are especially well looked for by NK that graze there. After that, NKs are fueled by sea-based KR.

                        Coastal-based anti-submarine aviation of the Orion type is neutralized by a nuclear attack on home-based airfields. Through 12 hours, no Orion will remain in the air.

                        After that, shock submarines pass into the Central Atlantic, which should already be sought not along the arc of the PLO boundary, but in a rectangle along the entire eastern coast of the United States at a distance of 2500 km from the coast.

                        In the courtyard 10-e years 21 century. Do not drag here the cost characteristics of 70-ies of the last century. The ratio of prices for AV and NPS has changed significantly (see above). By the way, the cost of Spryuens has already exceeded for 1,5 billion bucks.

                        PS Is this a joke of humor like this - search for shock submarines of the fourth generation (hearing surface ships at a distance more than 100 miles) with single NC (hearing submarines at a distance less than 100 miles)?
                      3. Scraptor
                        Scraptor 21 December 2015 07: 47
                        0
                        AGAIN TIME OF AMAZING STORIES? wassat
                        There NATO, Tu-22 without its fighter cover will be shot down by its aircraft and air defense systems.
                        All boats in bases or beyond the coastal Su-27 radius by its aircraft will be destroyed not under ice as quickly. Flying to the Atlantic is the same as flying from it through Gibraltar to the Mediterranean - it is the inland Ocean of North Atlantic Allanas. Greenland is one continuous ice airfield. Of course, non-aerodrome-based flying boats and carrier-based aircraft, even helicopter, we jokingly forget again, because it prevents composting the Russian brain with the omnipotence of their actually defenseless nuclear submarines.

                        The difference in the value of NK and PL in the same currency does not change from time to time.

                        Nuclear submarines off the coast of the United States are needed for the short flight time of missiles to targets. To do this, they must be imperceptibly (and with this it turns out very, very bad) deployed in peacetime. In wartime, we won’t be able to overcome the anti-submarine milestone for the nuclear submarines; in the absence of their anti-aircraft defense, they will be just defenseless targets for NATO anti-submarine aviation. Therefore, with the introduction of the American hydrophone system, the radius of Soviet SLBMs was increased so that they could be launched before the submarine approached the anti-submarine line.

                        Tie a joke and goof off with your 100 miles - the submarine will be drowned by aircraft based including on the NK and not the NK itself as it is now, along with its satellites, one of which two satellites has recently been put into orbit by the VKS.
                      4. Operator
                        Operator 21 December 2015 11: 51
                        0
                        Tu-22 will detect all ship formations at the turn of the PLO before the outbreak of hostilities. And they will destroy these compounds of the submarines with supersonic KR after the start of hostilities. What kind of fighter cover Tu-22 is required in peacetime?

                        The only type of anti-submarine coast-based aircraft - Orion, for the future - Poseidon. What kind of flying NATO boats can we talk about? In addition to the landing site of the type of glaciers of Greenland (by the way, ask about the number of cracks and lakes of melt water in the summer period on these glaciers) you need to have bunkers for aviation fuel and warehouses of aviation ammunition there. Therefore, no one will improvise with ice runways.

                        Do not tell my sneakers - AB in the ship's compounds at the turn of PLO will be destroyed first. The range of deck helicopters does not exceed 100 km (not miles, Karl). The number of aviation kerosene on board the NK allows them to be used only after external targeting on the submarine.

                        Cost indicators are clearly not your fad.

                        You are completely confused with SOSUS - it was mothballed after the fourth-generation shock submarines were commissioned.

                        Indeed, the best option for the use of submarines in the Atlantic is their deployment along the US East Coast in peacetime. It is required to secretly overcome the PLO frontier without destroying it. Well, for this will serve an armada of underwater drones with a displacement of about a dozen tons each.

                        For satellites, please, separately - what type of satellite does the submarine find submerged?
                      5. Scraptor
                        Scraptor 21 December 2015 14: 04
                        0
                        Yes, of course ... Tu-22s are constantly accompanied by F-15/18/22 and not Su-33.
                        As soon as hostilities begin, on the contrary, anti-submarine aircraft will destroy the nuclear defenseless defense from it.

                        Yes, at least about the Japanese who will take from the Pacific Ocean. In general, about any that fit the same as in a helicopter. Nobody improvises with ice stripes, they can fly from them the same way as in Antarctica.

                        Quote: Operator
                        AB as part of ship formations at the turn of the PLO will be destroyed first.

                        Because your slippers are so laid on brown heads?

                        Sikorsky SH-3 Sea King, Range: 621 mi (1,000 km)
                        what are 100km?
                        kerosene on the Premier League yes ...

                        Obviously you politician just have nothing to argue.

                        Canned and reported to you about this?

                        And each of them will be assigned a number ...

                        Don't you know anything about this? laughing
                      6. Operator
                        Operator 21 December 2015 14: 40
                        0
                        Judging by the "political officer", the citizen of Iceland ran out of arguments.

                        In peacetime, the Tu-22 do not need fighter escort. Their task is simple - to transfer the extreme coordinates of the connections of the ships at the time of the beginning of the military conflict. The launch of the Kyrgyz Republic on the NC and air bases of the PLO line will occur within a few dozen seconds. Therefore, Tu-22 will be shot down or not shot down after this point for the fate of NK and the bases does not matter.

                        I, on the other hand, advised you to take a look at the state of the neighboring island washed by the Gulf Stream — that is, the surface of the Greenland glaciers in terms of cracks and lakes of melt water. What does the ice sheet of the southern continent - Atlantis, existing in fundamentally different climatic conditions?
                        In addition, it is not enough to fly from the glacier; there it is necessary to deploy the fuel supply base and the ammunition / buoy in advance.

                        The deck helicopter does not fly in one direction on 500 km and back, but patrols in a given area along 10x100 km.

                        I understand you, it is sad to have a permanent residence near the primary object of a nuclear strike - NATO air base Keflavik am
                      7. Scraptor
                        Scraptor 21 December 2015 15: 20
                        -1
                        Judging by the switch to the flags, the political commander was planning to break through the anti-submarine line in wartime instead of risking SLBMs and releasing them immediately, there were never any arguments (and there couldn’t be).

                        For this time, the NK compounds will have all the coordinates of the nuclear submarines in their radius of action, and at the turn of the launch of anti-ship missiles, the nuclear submarines will stomp on them several times for as many.

                        The zampolitans were there and saw? Arctic airfields in the Arctic are even located on floating ice; Greenland has no fundamental difference with Antarctica.
                        They even supply fuel in the air with refuellers in advance; with re-equipment it is more difficult. lol

                        This is an old deck helicopter, although it already knew how to land on the water, in the picture there is not even a mast for refueling. bully

                        And what will happen immediately with Severomorsk Vedyaevo Gadzhievo Zap Lyceum? It’s sad when the lie doesn’t stick together and the Russians begin to wonder who reduced them to the position of defenseless herrings crammed full of poplums with useless nuclear warheads into a barrel deeply diving with zero buoyancy, recording the exit from which they are then led and at any time specifying the situation with sonars and other means the ear with dynamite, not even a core. And this barrel does not pop up its belly up and will fall to the bottom, and they can not play hide-and-seek in the absence of serious air defense systems and their aircraft above their heads, they will not be able to prevent this.
                      8. Operator
                        Operator 21 December 2015 16: 06
                        -1
                        Yes, you, it turns out, also Russophobe. Well, then tell us what kind of super-duo of the Kyrgyz Republic are available to NATO, even if they reach the range of Caliber and X-101.

                        Again porridge in my head - the connections of NATO ships grazing on the North Atlantic boundary of the PLO will be sunk by supersonic cruise ships from nuclear submarines at a distance of 500 km without crossing the PLO boundary. The airborne bases of the PLO will be destroyed by subsonic CUs with submarines at a distance of 2500 km also without crossing the PLO boundary.
                        The former PLO frontier will be crossed by a nuclear submarine with the aim of striking the KR on the US Eastern Coast from a distance from 500 to 2500 km.

                        When you learn how to deliver ammunition on board an aircraft in flight, then mention "ice air bases in Greenland" laughing

                        And what, there are new deck helicopters with a range of more than 1000 km? By the way, you didn’t answer the question how much aviation kerosene is aboard the destroyer and will there be enough of a deck helicopter for one day?

                        What kind of sadness do you have about Western Face? You better remember the primary glass transition of Keflavik with Rekjavik.
                      9. Scraptor
                        Scraptor 21 December 2015 18: 45
                        -1
                        The ruling Russophobe-pest is you. Decided to translate the topic to rockets? From helicopters and nuclear submarines do not have anti-aircraft weapons with their crews under water will be drowned.

                        What are you talking about rubbish not with 100 miles but with 500-2500 km?

                        Everything is there, just enough. Jump, maybe to Greenland from your Israelis or America you jump there will teach you. Iceland also has a glacier. Communicate here with your own kind of amusing grossadmiral in treads leading a submarine in wartime during a breakthrough instead of shooting their SLBMs. bully
                      10. Operator
                        Operator 21 December 2015 19: 46
                        -1
                        "Don't have", "Greenlandai" - so you're not Russian yet.
                        In Keflavik opened division AF Information Warfare Center? Then congratulations - you slept laughing
                      11. Scraptor
                        Scraptor 21 December 2015 20: 26
                        0
                        The politician ran out of his ravings and began to find fault with the syntax?
                      12. Operator
                        Operator 21 December 2015 21: 24
                        0
                        Oh, and choy something on your avtorka the American, then the Icelandic flag alternately lit?
                        The router on USAF base knocks?
                        Disorder - report by instance laughing
                      13. Scraptor
                        Scraptor 22 December 2015 09: 43
                        0
                        Didn't find the syntax again for the flags?
  23. Alexey RA
    Alexey RA 21 December 2015 10: 42
    0
    Quote: Operator
    Coastal-based anti-submarine aviation of the Orion type is neutralized by a nuclear attack on home-based airfields. Through 12 hours, no Orion will remain in the air.

    That is, without the use of NBC, our fleet cannot conduct combat operations in the Atlantic? Gorgeous.
    One question - why do we need such a fleet then? What damage can the enemy do in 30 minutes? Because after the application of the NBC at the aerodromes of aviation PLO, a retaliatory strike of strategic nuclear forces automatically follows. The threshold has been crossed.
  24. Operator
    Operator 21 December 2015 12: 06
    0
    I did not understand the question - how can you fight with NATO without the use of nuclear weapons?

    And, on the other hand, why break through the North Atlantic frontier PLO with the use of nuclear weapons, if the shock submarines will be involved in a local conflict not with NATO countries - such as an operation in Syria with conventional warhead cruise missiles?
  25. Alexey RA
    Alexey RA 21 December 2015 10: 38
    0
    Quote: Operator
    Attack submarines operate without cover by surface ships, and aircraft carriers and helicopter carriers - only with cover. Therefore, in the second case, the cost of the carrier vessel should be added to the cost of the escort.

    And the cost of a strike nuclear submarine needs to be increased three or four times. For the guaranteed destruction of AB in the 80s was possible in the event of an attack by two "batons" and two 670Ms. Supported by MRAP (the cost of which should also not be forgotten). smile
  26. Operator
    Operator 21 December 2015 12: 08
    0
    The situation has changed - the possibility of placing the order of hundreds of CDs on board allows one submarine to disable not only the AV, but also its escort.
  27. Operator
    Operator 21 December 2015 12: 08
    -1
    The situation has changed - the possibility of placing the order of hundreds of CDs on board allows one submarine to disable not only the AV, but also its escort.
  28. spravochnik
    spravochnik 21 December 2015 15: 53
    0
    Actually, only American submarines of the modified Ohio type can carry such a number of missile launchers. From Russian "Ash" maximum 32 pcs.
  29. Operator
    Operator 21 December 2015 16: 10
    0
    I agree (32 CR is also nothing). But the title of the article says "Looking into the future."
  • Alexey RA
    Alexey RA 21 December 2015 10: 36
    +1
    Quote: Operator
    The connections of surface ships at the turn of the PLO are in the range of reconnaissance aircraft Tu-22, the coordinates of the airfields and ground structures are known in advance.

    Which scouts will be shot down with the outbreak of war. Because our fleet cannot provide them with any cover in the ocean.
    Quote: Operator
    And then - it is the United States that is bombing, while the Russian Federation has Caliber cruise missiles (range with a nuclear warhead of 2500 km) and Kh-101 (range with a nuclear warhead of 5500 km).

    Which can only be used for stationary purposes. The anti-ship option range is much more modest.
    Quote: Operator
    As for the danger to aviation submarines, you have peacetime views, such as a helicopter with a range of 100 km, flying and detecting submarines by submersible radar. This happens only on the teachings. In wartime, the submarine will be the first to detect a ship’s connection for more than 100 miles and hit it with supersonic cruise missiles. Nothing will take off.

    What helicopter, what are you talking about? ASW aviation is, first of all, "Orions", carrying on board everything that is needed to detect a submarine and its subsequent destruction.
    First, SOSUS will give a square where the SP is likely to be. Then the PLO headquarters will send Orion to this square, which will begin to sow the water with linear and circular barriers of passive RSL. And when the submarine is found, Orion will drop anti-submarine torpedoes.
    And the worst thing is that the first Orion will be replaced by the second one. And the third one. And the fourth. And the SP will not be able to do anything with them.
    1. Operator
      Operator 21 December 2015 12: 24
      0
      How do you know that Caliber and X-101 can only be used for ground targets, especially for the future? Already, they have a full gentlemen’s set of navigation systems and homing systems in the final segment - otherwise the CU could not work on point targets in Syria.

      Firstly, SOSUS cannot detect shock submarines of the fourth generation.

      Secondly, to round-the-clock patrol over the Atlantic in the square of 5000х2000 km (10 million sq. Km) and sow it with hydrobuoys, no NATO resources will be enough.

      Thirdly, in the case of mass use of drones - nuclear submarine imitators, they will be the only victims of PLO aviation.
  • Boa kaa
    Boa kaa 19 December 2015 22: 04
    +2
    Quote: Operator
    If the connection of surface ships using active sonars at a distance of two to three hundred miles is still lucky to detect nuclear submarines

    Are you a science fiction? Look at the holy calendar to determine the detection range of the PL-NK-PL.
    Quote: Operator
    Nuclear submarines with dozens of homing supersonic cruise missiles equipped with nuclear warheads ...
    You can immediately see that the typical outfit of forces and BK ships are not familiar to you. (As luck would have it?)
    1. Operator
      Operator 19 December 2015 23: 21
      -1
      "The capabilities of missile submarines 949A of the project for reconnaissance are much wider. With the help of their hydroacoustics, they can detect the noise of aircraft carrier groups at a distance of more than 100 nautical miles", - K. Sivkov (C)

      Each ballistic missile silo of a strategic nuclear submarine holds 6-7 cruise missiles, for a total of 96-114 CR. In the hull of any attack nuclear submarine, you can embed a section with missile silos like "Virginia".
      1. Boa kaa
        Boa kaa 20 December 2015 10: 25
        +1
        Quote: Operator
        In each mine of a ballistic missile of a strategic nuclear submarine, 6-7 cruise missiles are placed, totaling 96-114 KR.

        Andrew, well, who argues that you can ...
        The thing is that only strategists carry all pencils with nuclear BB. But multipurpose and special-purpose submarines are loaded differently ... Therefore, your statement about "nuclear submarines with several dozen homing supersonic cruise missiles equipped with nuclear warheads" has no real embodiment in the set of weapons (BC) of such boats. yes
        1. Operator
          Operator 20 December 2015 11: 15
          -1
          It's about wartime.
      2. Scraptor
        Scraptor 20 December 2015 12: 41
        0
        Deck aviation can detect and retrieve them for 1500 miles. laughing
        1. Operator
          Operator 20 December 2015 15: 10
          0
          How many anti-submarine aviation will be required to detect one fourth-generation submarine in the 1 687 500 square nautical area?

          And if at one time the 10, 100 or 1000 submarine apparatuses (including drones - APL simulators) are in the zone of responsibility of the anti-submarine aviation?
          1. Scraptor
            Scraptor 20 December 2015 15: 49
            0
            Ten times less than as much as the "breakthrough" of the nuclear submarine will go. Submarine simulators are poorly recognized only by anti-submarine torpedoes.
            1. Operator
              Operator 20 December 2015 20: 49
              -1
              1000 submersibles will be distributed over the 1 area of ​​a billion 687 million square nautical miles. What is the performance of the search for PLO aircraft in square miles per day given that only 10 percent of the vehicles are impact submarines and 90 percent are drones?
              1. Scraptor
                Scraptor 20 December 2015 22: 18
                0
                This is your anti-submarine Danish "straits" became like that? Confusing square with round?
  • Alexey RA
    Alexey RA 21 December 2015 10: 25
    0
    Quote: Alex_59
    All right. The breakthrough through SOSUS is very difficult. But it is still possible. But the breakthrough of the Soviet aircraft carrier in the Atlantic would have ended in the Norwegian Sea. Too noticeable goal.

    Ahem ... why do you think that AB will be alone? EMNIP, financially and technically, the USSR could build 10 AUGs - instead of a real-life fleet and regiments of MPAs.
    And they were all offered to base them in the North - for the main theater was the Atlantic.
    1. Alex_59
      21 December 2015 12: 37
      0
      Quote: Alexey RA
      Ahem ... why do you think that AB will be alone?

      Of course not one. I have an article about submarines, not AB. I can write about AV separately somehow, the topic is too voluminous. I think 10 AB still would not have mastered. Given their speed of construction in Nikolaev ... According to my estimates, at the time of delivery of the 6-7-th ship, the first one in terms of time and resources should already be written off. Those. the constant number of AB in the USSR could be, well, let 8 ships. Those. 8 AUG. With a real policy of distributing ships from them, 4-5 would go to the North. Further, KOH is not equal to 1, i.e. 3-4 ship will go into battle. Well, and what is it, against the background of the combined NATO fleet in the Atlantic? Crap ... would be kneaded.
      Yes, even if there were all 10 and everything in the North, 8 would go into battle. As soon as they leave the Barents Sea, that's it! They are in hostile waters. While any NATO boat will find shelter in Norway, and Denmark, and in England, and in Spain, and in Iceland. What should we rely on? Aviation needs kerosene, sailors grub. Is it all to carry from Murmansk? So they will give - aviation will work from Norway. In general, there would be such a batch ... There are still few chances. Very similar to the general battle of the Kamikaze fleet.
  • ism_ek
    ism_ek 18 December 2015 15: 03
    +2
    Aircraft carrier is a brand well-promoted by Americans. They performed well during World War II. But in modern times, their value is very relative. During conflicts in Iraq, Libya, Serbia, less than 10% of sorties were carried out with aircraft carriers. Aircraft-based aircraft have truncated functionality. Unused ammunition often has to be dumped before landing.

    The Second World War is a war of torpedoes, piston aircraft and anti-aircraft artillery. Current air defense systems do not give the plane a chance to fly at close range. The ship is hit from long range by missiles. In fact, in a naval battle, an airplane becomes superfluous.
    Attacks from an aircraft carrier against terrorists are also ineffective, because a plane with a short take-off will not be able to take a lot of payload

    The USSR had several large squadrons in the oceans. The Mediterranean Squadron alone included 95 ships. Naturally, the stability of such formations required an aircraft carrier, such as air defense. The air group on Kuznetsovo consisted exclusively of interceptors. Shock missions in the USSR before the aircraft carrier was not posed. Now our ships go out into the oceans one at a time. Cruisers can stand up for themselves, they do not need additional protection from the air.

    And in conclusion. It is a mistake to think that an aircraft carrier is a cargo ferry with airplanes. This is the most difficult ship in the world. Catapults, lifts ... Imagine a device for lifting an aircraft weighing 30 tons from the hangar to the deck. What should be the power plant of the ship in order to simultaneously move a ship weighing 100 tons at a high speed, raise aircraft onto the deck, accelerate them to a speed of 000 km / h ....
    No weapons on the aircraft carrier? And the ammunition stock of the aircraft ... It needs to be stored somewhere, taken up quickly to the deck ... And several thousand personnel ... All ship systems are intertwined into a single ball and break very often. A successful aircraft carrier cannot be built from scratch. Read about the French Charles de Gaulle, and the French recognized shipbuilders, helicopter carriers, how to build in less than a year.

    It’s pointless to think about aircraft carriers. But about the replacement of the Atlanteans and the Eagles need to think. The Americans wrote off the coevals of the Moscow cruiser a long time ago. Of course now the dimensions of missile weapons have decreased. The S-400 type air defense system can also be installed on the destroyer. We must think what we need.
    1. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 18 December 2015 15: 54
      +5
      Quote: ism_ek
      The USSR had several large squadrons in the oceans. The Mediterranean Squadron alone included 95 ships. Naturally, the stability of such formations required an aircraft carrier, such as air defense. The air group on Kuznetsovo consisted exclusively of interceptors. Shock missions in the USSR before the aircraft carrier was not posed.

      It is interesting how the construction of four TAVKR, carrying aboard the KVVP attack aircraft, is consistent with this statement? laughing

      As for "Kuznetsov", then you should not pass off need for virtue. Ours would be happy to set strike tasks for his air group - but for this it was necessary to modernize the Su-33 (for which there was always no money) and solve the eternal problem with the power plant, due to which the takeoff of cars with a normal take-off weight from 1143.5 is impossible.
      Quote: ism_ek
      The ship is hit from long range by missiles. In fact, in a naval battle, an airplane becomes superfluous.

      That is, you preferred to leave the main concept of a modern aircraft carrier as a platform for launching missiles to a launch range ...

      Yes, you can make rockets with a range of 500 km or more. But there are 3 problems.
      1. Beyond the horizon. In a bundle of aircraft-RCC, this control center issues a carrier aircraft. And his support is provided by electronic warfare and air clearance, not allowing the enemy to shoot anti-ship missiles as in a dash.
      2. Weight, dimensions and disposable overloads. Aircraft anti-ship missiles, which do not need to carry a reserve of fuel and other stray for long-distance flights, go much easier than long-range ship missiles. They also have smaller dimensions and EPR, and it is easier for them to maneuver.
      3. From point 2 directly comes out point 3: ammunition and dimensions of the carrier. An anti-ship missile launch vehicle with a radius comparable to the aircraft-anti-ship missile system (600-700 miles), and with an air defense system comparable to AB, will come out larger in size than the Peter.
      1. ism_ek
        ism_ek 18 December 2015 16: 44
        0
        Quote: Alexey RA
        That is, you preferred to leave the main concept of a modern aircraft carrier as a platform for launching missiles to a launch range ...

        You misunderstood me. During the Second World War, aircraft carriers significantly expanded the capabilities of the fleet, as an alternative to them were cruisers with barrel artillery. Compared to a modern missile cruiser, an aircraft carrier has significantly less advantages. If at all.
        Quote: Alexey RA
        2. Weight, dimensions and disposable overloads. Aircraft anti-ship missiles, which do not need to carry a reserve of fuel and other stray for long-distance flights, go much easier than long-range ship missiles. They also have smaller dimensions and EPR, and it is easier for them to maneuver.
        You can't put a powerful rocket on a plane. What can the Kh-31A missile with which the MiG 29K is armed? The MiG, and therefore Kuznetsov, even the destroyer is too tough.
        1. spravochnik
          spravochnik 18 December 2015 17: 30
          +2
          You did not understand this. A plane with a missile on board along the combat radius of any larger than RCC. And your carrier with a limited number of such missiles will not be allowed by any AUG to launch range. It follows from this that in order to reach this range an aircraft cover is needed, and therefore an aircraft carrier. I repeat once again, back in the early 80s, the USSR came to the conclusion that it is IMPOSSIBLE to provide air defense of ship formations without air cover.
        2. Alexey RA
          Alexey RA 18 December 2015 18: 57
          +2
          Quote: ism_ek
          You misunderstood me. During the Second World War, aircraft carriers significantly expanded the capabilities of the fleet, as an alternative to them were cruisers with barrel artillery. Compared to a modern missile cruiser, an aircraft carrier has significantly less advantages. If at all.

          Yah?
          The aircraft carrier is capable of delivering 48 anti-ship missiles at a range of 600-700 miles. Moreover, with flexible retargeting in flight and the suppression of air defense of the naval group of the enemy by electronic warfare and PRR. And to do this repeatedly, without going into the base for reloading. Is there a similar RRC?
          Quote: ism_ek
          You can't put a powerful rocket on a plane. What can the Kh-31A missile with which the MiG 29K is armed? The MiG, and therefore Kuznetsov, even the destroyer is too tough.

          110 kg warhead at a speed of 700-1000 m / s. Plus 450 kg of body weight of the rocket itself (launch weight minus fuel and warheads). Plus fuel leftovers.
    2. kapitan92
      kapitan92 18 December 2015 23: 18
      +4
      ..... We must think what we need.
      We had to think "yesterday" about what we need today.
      There should be a clearly calculated military doctrine for the development of the Russian Navy. For today, shy from side to side.
    3. Boa kaa
      Boa kaa 19 December 2015 22: 28
      +3
      Quote: ism_ek
      In fact, in a naval battle, an airplane becomes superfluous.
      This is you write amers! And the poor people can’t think of it!
      Quote: ism_ek
      Now our ships go out into the oceans one at a time. Cruisers can stand up for themselves, they do not need additional protection from the air.
      A single ship is an easy target for the enemy: neither the air defense / antiaircraft defense duty schedule ... nor the dezh medi ...
      The cruiser will be able to spit out the Harpoons with the F-45C / D alone for 50-18 minutes. And then you have to shoot with nuts ...
      Quote: ism_ek
      Thinking about aircraft carriers is pointless

      And why is that? Dreaming is not harmful, it is harmful not to dream! (C)
  • NEXUS
    NEXUS 18 December 2015 17: 43
    +3
    Ideal task for nuclear submarines. In any promising conflict, our submarine forces can become the enemy’s wild headache. And, most importantly, the production of the submarine fleet has never stopped and never stopped. The organization of mass construction of submarines requires minimal investment, which cannot be said about an aircraft carrier, for which you still need to create a production site from scratch and master a number of technologies that are completely absent in the country.

    Of course, it’s easier and faster to build a nuclear submarine than an aircraft carrier ... but ... now we are building a nuclear submarine slowly, unfortunately. And at this rate, we don’t see parity with the USA as our ears. I’m not talking about the quantity, but about the quality of the submarine. Ash ( Severodvinsk) goes only one! To the sea. MAPL Kazan of the Yasen-M project, God forbid, will be launched in the 16th year, which is not a fact. And we need these boats for two fleets, at least 7-8 pieces per fleet. We build and lay new boreas, but again one at a time. There are some difficulties with the Lada project, namely with an anaerobic installation. It’s too early to talk about something, because we didn’t go to production and capacities that allow us to say that we we can seriously contrast our submarine fleet with U.S. aircraft carrier groups. Alas, this is so far. But of course, it’s good that we were busy re-equipping the fleets. And it’s clear that this business is not cheap, but absolutely necessary, as the fleet is aging.
    1. Garris199
      Garris199 19 December 2015 01: 01
      0
      Quote: NEXUS
      And we need these boats in two fleets, at least 7-8 pieces per fleet.

      At least 7-8 units for both fleets, but we are still building these, it is not known what will happen. At least all Shchuki-B need to be put into operation, as far as I know now, no more than half of the total number of them are combat-ready.
      1. NEXUS
        NEXUS 19 December 2015 01: 09
        +3
        Quote: Garris199
        At least 7-8 units for both fleets, but we are still building these, it is not known what will happen. At least all Shchuki-B need to be put into operation, as far as I know now, no more than half of the total number of them are combat-ready.

        In fact, the same Lada, we had to start riveting like pies the day before yesterday. In fact, we’ll modernize Varshavyanka. This is where the stagnation is strong. And while there are no visible movements.
  • Dimon19661
    Dimon19661 18 December 2015 18: 22
    0
    The article is definitely good, it’s nice to finally read sober reasoning, there are small inaccuracies, but absolutely insignificant. I advise the AUG members to read the naval doctrine of the USSR. As for the TTX performance comparison, I can give you this example. My sibling made 13 autonomy on Project 667 submarines beeches, and in one trip his boat was not found, not at the transition to the area, not at carrying BS.And this is excuse me-12 missiles with RGCh IN. All these post tuning songs about the superiority of American nuclear submarines are just nonsense, which why then many believed. The comparison between our and the American fleets does not make sense - they always solved different problems. If the American fleet was sharpened by various types of strike operations, then the Soviet, and then the Russian, safe transfer of surface ships from submarine bases. had to strike, war was planned nuclear. The reloading of ships in these conditions was not even seriously considered by the way. This was a big difference between our ships and the US fleet, with the same displacement, there were more weapons on the Soviet ship. Accordingly, the reload time increased significantly. Something like this.
  • kapitan92
    kapitan92 18 December 2015 20: 39
    +4
    What article I did not understand. The author put everything together. How we were respected once or how they will respect us once.
    I know one thing, that at the moment there is no clear and verified naval doctrine for the development of the Russian fleet. There are many opinions, there are many disputes and, as always, there are a lot of pros in high headquarters. How many aircraft carriers, are they needed at all, what project to take as a basis, where to build - in one word BOLTOVNYA.
    Maybe you need to do something to 100% secure the coastal zone and bases? One can only dream of a "sosus" -type system, yes, what to say about a normally organized and technically equipped protection of the naval bases is too much.
    According to Russian experts, Russia is 30 years behind in the mine's torpedo armament. The zonal air defense system has 10 ships in all fleets.
    Okay, we’ll solve the sea problems slowly!
  • Denimax
    Denimax 18 December 2015 21: 42
    -3
    To counter AUG with the help of submarines may be yesterday. Now the most promising is the strikes on the AUG from space.
    1. Boa kaa
      Boa kaa 19 December 2015 22: 45
      +3
      Quote: Denimax
      Now the most promising is the strikes on the AUG from space.
      This is the future. But ballistic missiles such as the Chinese DF-21D are a harsh reality for US aircraft carriers.
      Surely, something appeared after R-27K. There was a topic about GZO with BR.
  • okroshka79
    okroshka79 18 December 2015 23: 40
    +1
    The article is definitely a plus, the author - respect. I would like to supplement the author a little. Today, the vast majority of forum users writing on the marine theme like a mantra repeat about the need for a balanced fleet. Poor understanding of the meaning of this expression. Most often, a certain proportion is meant between surface ships and submarines, or the presence of aircraft carriers compared to their absence in the fleet. And for what - it is not clear by ourselves. Type it would be necessary to have that, it would be necessary. In fact, the meaning of this expression is completely different: in a state of quantitative and qualitative combination of the branches of the Navy as a type of Armed Forces, to solve the problem, in cooperation with other types of the Armed Forces, of a country's victory in a future war with NATO countries led by the United States. And, given that such a war will inevitably grow into a global nuclear missile, another task, together with other types of armed forces, is the task of deterrence. It was such a task, in general, that was solved in the process of the post-war construction of our fleet. In some matters it’s better, in some worse. Anyone interested can find examples. In my opinion, this is precisely the idea the author wanted to bring. And at the same time, he very convincingly proved the inconsistency of the conclusions about the construction of our fleet, made in the book of Kuzin and Nikolsky.
  • Garris199
    Garris199 19 December 2015 00: 54
    0
    How are things with the submarine fleet today? The 7th Boreas "Emperor Alexander III" was laid. These are excellent and necessary ships, but wouldn't it be better to allocate power for the same ash trees? Three boreas are already in the ranks, three are under construction, and the ash tree is in splendid isolation. After all, there are still a few "dolphins", there are 941 "Dmitry Donskoy", there seem to be enough strategists. What do you think?
    1. NEXUS
      NEXUS 19 December 2015 01: 16
      +1
      Quote: Garris199
      How are things with the submarine fleet today? The 7th Boreas "Emperor Alexander III" was laid. These are excellent and necessary ships, but wouldn't it be better to allocate power for the same ash trees? Three boreas are already in the ranks, three are under construction, and the ash tree is in splendid isolation. After all, there are still a few "dolphins", there are 941 "Dmitry Donskoy", there seem to be enough strategists. What do you think?

      Yes, the same Boreev and Boreev-A are a clear shortage. What is 7 Boreev for two fleets? This is essentially nothing. They need at least 8 fleets for every fleet. Ashes are still ambushed. Severodvinsk alone has mattresses and this all. Although Yasenei we need at least 7-8 pieces per fleet, as well as Boreev. MAPL Kazan is unclear when they let them down (and this is Yasen-M). Dolphins age as they do not upgrade. New submarines are needed and a lot. We don’t build Lada, but we’ll modernize Varshavyanka. Of course, it’s the right thing, but we needed Lada yesterday. And now the Status-6 project has appeared. And it’s not clear whether he will be realized.
  • Dimon19661
    Dimon19661 19 December 2015 02: 22
    +1
    Quote: CERHJ
    Quote: Dimon19661
    My brother made 13 autonomy on a Project 667 beech submarine, and his boat was not found in one trip, not at the transition to the area, not at BS.And this is excuse me for 12 missiles with RGCh IN. All these post are tuning songs about the superiority of the American submarines is just nonsense, which for some reason many believed

    And how did he know about this? smile I’ve been growing up in the family of a naval officer since childhood, then I worked in the unit where the submarine crews were trained, I had the honor to know many of our submarine commanders. And everyone has the highest respect for the US Navy, nor any hatred mood ... And that . that your brother says. that they walked unnoticed, can only talk about that. they themselves did not notice the staff. They rarely provoked in the open, although the same was not without ..

    Well, if you know submariners, do not find it difficult to find out from them about control methods (and the result is almost 100%) A flare missile carrier is an absolutely useless thing.
  • surrozh
    surrozh 19 December 2015 08: 55
    0
    Rather summing up the past and present with org. conclusions. It is not possible to "catch up and overtake" the existing fleet of the West, therefore it is necessary to develop other directions of ocean control. Satellite target designation and launch of (hypersonic) missiles without entering the air defense zone seems to be promising. The satellite constellation is strengthening, "strategists" are being modernized, the release of new ones has been announced, information about hypersonic engines has disappeared from the media (and the S-500 can already hit hypersonic targets, tests were carried out on something), again the X-101 from 4500 km. Served well, and then AB with the battleships fed up. not only million, but billion in the table.
  • Dimon19661
    Dimon19661 19 December 2015 15: 14
    0
    Quote: CERHJ
    Quote: Dimon19661
    And what are the terms, slang.

    What is not clear, ask your brother.
    Quote: Dimon19661
    About how you suffered a boat then at least saw?

    No, that you, God forbid! My brother told me the same thing! laughing
    Quote: Dimon19661
    about control methods (and the result is almost 100%

    So don’t share with the public about the miracle system that allows 100% control of the space? I’ll say right away that if a towed HOOK doesn’t roll like 100%. We are waiting for a miracle ... lol

    Hmm ... another softer .... Not a system-methods. And stop reading Wiki-there’s not everything is objective. Personally, I’m not a submarine, but I’ve been given the surface fleet for more than 20 years, so I think that the topic (we were called industry before, though you do not know what it is)
  • archimer
    archimer 20 December 2015 21: 57
    0
    What would the best aces of the USSR answer!
  • kig
    kig 24 December 2015 13: 03
    0
    Here flashed a photo of the Norwegian naval base, and here http://igorkh.livejournal.com/1281.html you can see it on a larger scale.
  • Arikkhab
    Arikkhab 15 January 2016 21: 01
    0
    "Behind the beautiful aircraft carriers and cruisers is the" other fleet "of the United States - the most powerful transport fleet in the world. It was he who could provide an incredible volume of cargo transportation in a short time"
    probably one of the most important phrases in the article
    powerful merchant / transport fleet as the basis for the military
    otherwise, to support the "Syrian Express" I had to buy used ships
  • Gunther
    Gunther 10 February 2017 13: 00
    0
    What I like about Alexey’s articles is that, unlike Oleg, he points out the primary sources, he doesn’t rub on black)))