Military Review

Aviation and navy of Russia: rise or fall?

71
Aviation and navy of Russia: rise or fall?



An abundance of articles about the unprecedented revival of Russian fleet and the air force causes mixed feelings. Is that really true? We who were born in the late USSR lived for so long in conditions of falls and defeats that they became our organic part. We are unaccustomed to believe in victory. And the reports of American analysts writing about the rebellious from the ashes and again extremely dangerous Russian Navy cause us doubts. However, distinguishing truth from fiction is simple enough.

FLEET

Subjective evaluations, of course, are important. We are all humans. A good attitude and self-reliance cost hundreds of ships. Nevertheless, the main drawback of other assessments (“everything is fine with us” and “everything is bad with us”) is that they are biased and do not give specifics. What indicator can accurately reflect the real situation in the Russian Navy? The number of miles traveled and burned tons of fuel, running hours. But the average person has almost no access to this information.

Under these conditions, the most accurate indicator of fleet care from the state is the number of ships and vessels ordered for the Navy. And not just ordered, but completed. This indicator also characterizes the capabilities of the shipbuilding industry.

What are the disadvantages of this indicator? In the first place inertia. From the beginning of the preparation for the construction of the vessel to its delivery to the customer pass years. That is, if right now we decide to start building a ship and allocate money for it, we will see the real fruit of our efforts only in a few years.

And vice versa, if we build ships in series and suddenly decide to give up this senseless business, the pipeline will not stop instantly. The buildings already standing on the stocks are financed, equipment has been ordered for them and contractors have already shipped everything that is required. The ship will be completed in a few years, although we have lost interest in it now. At the same time, of course, we must understand that it is easier to destroy than to build, therefore the “incubation” period of collapse is undoubtedly shorter than the same “incubation” period of growth.

Therefore, looking at the statistics figures, one should clearly realize that the fall or rise of shipbuilding did not begin at the moment of actually noticeable rise or fall, but several years earlier.





What do we see as a result? The collapse of shipbuilding in 1993-95. This means that the state actually abandoned military shipbuilding during the 1990-1991 years. Just on the eve of the collapse of the USSR. What happened next - only the completion of what else could be completed. There could be no talk of any new constructions and projects. The bottom of this fall was reached in 2002 year - zero ships were built.

Uncertain growth was seen only in 2007-2010's. During these years, the first completely new projects created in post-Soviet Russia from scratch appeared - for example, the TFR of the 20380 project. All this speaks of the weak, but still the first attempts to revive the fleet, at least minimally, undertaken in 2005-2008.

Finally, more steady growth is seen from the year 2012, i.e. seriously began to engage in military shipbuilding at the turn of 2008-2010's. The connection with the conflict in Ossetia and Abkhazia is obvious, when it became clear even to a particularly liberal state that it would not hurt to have some fleet.

The 2015 statistics for the year are incomplete, but it is possible that the fall really does take place: today, sanctions affecting the launch of actually finished ships are in effect. At the same time, it is obvious that the volume of military shipbuilding in Russia over the 2012-2015 years has steadily exceeded the period of the 1995-2010 years. By the number of built ships, we are approximately at the level of 60% of the level of 1989 of the year, and by tonnage about 20%. The latter is partly due to a significant reduction in our ocean ambitions. Today we mainly build ships of the near-sea zone, while in the USSR the share of ships in the far-off ocean zone reached half of all military shipbuilding.

Evaluating this statistics, it is also necessary to take into account the fact that part of the shipbuilding capacities of Russia is now absent. Those. reach the level of the USSR, in principle, impossible. Moreover, the loss of power is quite serious. For example, the Nikolaev SSZ was one of the best factories in the industry, the only one to build aircraft carrier ships, in fact, second in power after the Sevmashzavod. There is no “Leninskaya smithy” in Kiev, there is no Kherson CVD, there is no number of small ship-repair enterprises in Estonia and Latvia. In fact, some factories in Russia itself were destroyed.

Really nothing special. Our country deserves more. At least 50% of 1989 of the year by tonnage is quite real. At this rate, it is quite possible to build a very dangerous and toothy fleet, even if not an ocean, like the US Navy. Such a fleet will be fully capable of causing unacceptable damage to the aggressor or defending the interests of the state in peacetime.
The main thing that encourages is not the “zero” 2002 year.

AVIATION

The main purpose of creating this article, of course, was the presentation of statistics on ships and fleet. Aviation will be touched only superficially, because statistics on it is maintained and publicly available, unlike the naval one (http://russianplanes.net/registr).

Unlike the section on fleet, the statistics on the aircraft industry covers all aircraft built at Russian plants, including for a foreign customer. That is why even in the worst years, these figures did not equal zero. Even in the hardest times, Russia still supplied at least piece aircraft for export. However, the tendency to catch it does not interfere. Another important note: 2015 year is excluded, because there are still no full statistics for it, but obviously, some recession should be expected.





As can be seen from the table, things in the aircraft industry are somewhat "more fun." Since the tonnage for aircraft is not accepted, and even stupid, the assessment applies only to the number of aircraft released. On the production of aircraft, we reach 50% of the 1989 of the year, and even more than 50% for helicopters.

CONCLUSIONS

Surely we can say that the most difficult times are over. And the shipbuilding and aviation industries were able to survive the devastating effects of the 90's. However, it is clear that the level of the USSR to reach in the near future will not work. The outlined success is still too fragile and unstable. It is not by chance that right now we are being beaten by sanctions. Right now there is still a chance to inflict heavy damage on the beginning and still too weak revival of the industry. Competitors must be destroyed while they are weak. That is why today they are putting pressure on Russia as never before, because if you do not reverse the trend today, it will be much more difficult in 5-6 years.

Another thing is obvious: there was no industrial paradise in the 90s. The fact that in the first years after the collapse of the USSR something else was being built and assembled speaks not about some successes of the democratic authorities of the new Russia, but only about the strength of the industrial power that the USSR created and which continued to work for several years even after the death of the state . The separate white spots of 90 (such as the surrender of "Peter the Great" in 1998) also speak more about the will of workers and engineers, exclusively for the sake of the motherland, pulling the hull and side, without receiving salaries and covens at night to feed the families, rather than merits of reformers from a market economy.

None of us wants to go back to 90's. Therefore, all that is required of us is not to give our probable opponents such joy as the repeated collapse of our production and armed forces.

Materials used sites:
http://russianships.info
http://russianplanes.net
Author:
71 comment
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Ami du peuple
    Ami du peuple 16 January 2016 06: 51 New
    22
    ..realistically, the state abandoned military shipbuilding in the period 1990-1991. Just on the eve of the collapse of the USSR

    Which once again proves that the collapse of the Union was not a spontaneous, but a well-planned action. At the end of his reign, Gorbachev ruined everything he could reach.
    Thanks to the author. Especially for the informative summary table on shipbuilding.
    1. Dembel77
      Dembel77 16 January 2016 09: 20 New
      +7
      Of course - the USSR had great potential and Russia would not be able to catch up with its ancestor soon. But as you can see from the article, everything is not so bad, young Russia went through the period of growth of milk teeth and dangerous indigenous ones began to cut. And in the future (again, if there is money), Russia can grow a couple of magnificent predatory fangs for itself - this is a modern powerful fleet with an aircraft carrier group and an air fleet, which will include ultra-modern front-line aviation systems, and new strategic missile carriers, and many what else, that only on paper. The most important thing is the economy. Well, and still to defeat corruption .... but so far this is only a dream.
      1. Setrac
        Setrac 16 January 2016 18: 55 New
        0
        Quote: Dembel 77
        Of course - the USSR had great potential and Russia would not be able to catch up with its ancestor soon.

        Interestingly, did this list include ships built for the Soviet fleet by Polish shipyards?
    2. Sweles
      Sweles 16 January 2016 10: 41 New
      +9
      the fact that for many years present-day Russia has been able to accumulate a certain shift in old planes and helicopters is yes there is growth here. Only if we compare the aviation industry of the West and our low-power industry, which, by the way, is based on the western machine tool base, will the comparison be far from in our favor. Moreover, talk of "import substitution" is just talk. Is the state program of substitution of means of production on its own adopted? no, it’s not accepted, and our enterprises will continue to spend foreign currency on imported machine tools, and strange stories with the SECOND STAGE engine on PAX?
      And to take civilian aircraft industry, there’s a failure, as the superpupere remained so — almost the entire import aircraft, ms21 is under construction and under construction, in short, “everything is according to plan” and when it will end it is not known, and the production of large wide-bodied bodies is out of the question, ours companies will buy large airplanes in the west.
      In short, such articles as this one, saying that "everything is bad behind," is another talk in order to hide the true state of things in the aircraft industry.
      Now, against the background of the loss of the oil component in our budget, we would take and reorient the state from the raw materials to producing aircraft and machine tools, but the entire crafty-liberal shushera presented at the Gaidar forum does not even stutter about this. Therefore, the CONCLUSION about such articles-DO NOT BE DEPENDED ...
  2. Same lech
    Same lech 16 January 2016 06: 55 New
    +4
    It is safe to say that the most difficult times are behind. Both the shipbuilding and aviation industries were able to survive the devastating effects of the 90s. However, it is obvious that in the near future it will not be possible to achieve the level of the USSR.


    Of course it won’t work ...
    roughly speaking, our country and people got a powerful knockdown in the form of Gaidar reforms in the 90s ... and we need to raise another generation of young people to get rid of the consequences of Gaidar’s shock therapy and Gorbachev’s perestroika ..
    hehe graphics clearly show the inertia of the loss of achievements of the USSR in modern RUSSIA in the 90s.
  3. Alexander Romanov
    Alexander Romanov 16 January 2016 07: 09 New
    -2
    He put a minus for the graphics, if you delve into the internet, then in the same year 2012 the Russian Air Force received 60 new planes. And then in the same spirit, and if you take it with those built under foreign contracts, then even more. With planes the same topic.
    1. LÄRZ
      LÄRZ 16 January 2016 07: 34 New
      +5
      Quote: Alexander Romanov
      , if you delve into the internet,

      That is, deep "excavations" in the internet are the ultimate truth?
      1. Alexander Romanov
        Alexander Romanov 16 January 2016 07: 39 New
        13
        Quote: LÄRZ
        That is, deep "excavations" in the internet are the ultimate truth?

        2012 MO report on delivered equipment for you what?
        For other years do you dig up?
        For 2014, according to the scheme, 57 aircraft and 120 turntables.
        Now reality
        2014 year
        81 combat, 20 educational and seven transport and special.
        The number of delivered vehicles included:
        24 Su-35 fighters,
        21 Su-30SM fighter,
        8 Su-30M2 fighters
        18 front-line bombers Su-34,
        10 deck fighter MiG-29K / KUB
        In addition to the listed combat aircraft, the Russian Air Force also received 20 Yak-130 combat training aircraft, one Tu-214ON Open Skies observation aircraft, four An-148-100 passenger aircraft and two An-140-100 cargo-passenger aircraft
        .
        And on turntables, 120 was delivered to the Air Force, but about 300 turntables were built in total complexity. This includes both export and citizen. Therefore, the author found graphics of very, very low quality and based on them he wrote an article hi
        1. cth; fyn
          cth; fyn 16 January 2016 07: 55 New
          +2
          Well set and assembled it is both warm and soft ..
    2. Odysseus
      Odysseus 16 January 2016 08: 01 New
      +2
      Quote: Alexander Romanov
      He put a minus for the graphics, if you delve into the internet, then in the same year 2012 the Russian Air Force received 60 new planes. And then in the same spirit, and if you take it with those built under foreign contracts, then even more. With planes the same topic.

      Yes, indeed, the schedule sins with very strong inaccuracies. Both in Soviet times and in Russian.
      1. Alex_59
        16 January 2016 09: 33 New
        +3
        Quote: Odyssey
        Yes, indeed, the schedule sins with very strong inaccuracies. Both in Soviet times and in Russian.

        In Soviet times, only those produced on the territory of the RSFSR were taken, excluding the Union republics (Ukraine, Uzbekistan, Georgia, etc.). By modern times, the data may not be absolutely accurate.
        1. Ermak
          Ermak 16 January 2016 10: 38 New
          0
          Quote: Alex_59
          Quote: Odyssey
          Yes, indeed, the schedule sins with very strong inaccuracies. Both in Soviet times and in Russian.

          In Soviet times, only those produced on the territory of the RSFSR were taken, excluding the Union republics (Ukraine, Uzbekistan, Georgia, etc.). By modern times, the data may not be absolutely accurate.

          If this is so, then the factories mentioned in Ukraine, for example, have nothing to do with it, and indeed it is not entirely correct to compare these data since they are superficial and do not give a general picture, because production capacities in the USSR were distributed throughout the territory. Therefore, an approach is probably needed here: how much Soviet equipment was needed, taking into account the types of possible conflicts for that time and how much was built (was) in reality. It is similar to do for modern Russia and compare the indicators for these two periods, taking into account the time adjustment (measure the types of possible threats and types of weapons).
        2. Odysseus
          Odysseus 16 January 2016 13: 26 New
          +5
          Quote: Alex_59
          In Soviet times, only those produced on the territory of the RSFSR were taken, excluding the Union republics (Ukraine, Uzbekistan, Georgia, etc.). By modern times, the data may not be absolutely accurate.

          Thank you for your work. Surely the general dynamics of the graphs is correct, but the specific numbers are still not accurate. Look only at MMZ Znamya Truda from 1983 to 1992, that is, in 10 years it built more than 1200 Mig-29s. Over 120 in a year. And that’s only one plant and one plane.
          So there could have been 1989 aircraft built in the RSFSR in 97. Real numbers are 2-3 times higher.
          And in no way could more aircraft be built in 1991 than in 1989.
        3. xtur
          xtur 16 January 2016 15: 24 New
          +2
          according to the methodology, there can be a separate dispute, therefore it makes sense to give the most complete statistics, and then to separate them somehow, and the choice of statistics only across the territory of the Russian Federation is methodically incorrect, because from the point of view of the USSR economy, it was a single organism, in which there were republics in which were assembled - say, like Ukraine and the whole Baltic.
          Therefore, at best, all Soviet statistics could be reduced in proportion to the population, but here one can argue - the production of military equipment is determined by the level of threats to the country, which are highly dependent on geography and borders. The volume of the borders of the Russian Federation is not much smaller than the volume of the borders of the USSR, and nobody will be able to save on global functions, which will save on costs - the Russian army is already at war in Syria, it will soon be drawn into the war in Afghanistan and Central Asia, and there is also a confrontation with Turkey and Ukraine.


          Most of the global expenditures can be transferred to allies with their own areas of interests and areas of responsibility - India and China, but in exchange for this, the United States allowed the Japanese to sharply increase their military spending and build a real army, which means that in the global standings, Russia + India + China vs USA + Japan.

          In exchange for a significantly smaller population of the Russian Federation, today it is integrated into the global economy, and this saves the resources necessary to maintain economic authorship.

          Therefore, the adjustment for a smaller population is not significant, there is only a difference in military doctrines and a balance in the level of threats and allies, which has already been mentioned and in general the Russian Federation should have an army similar to the USSR, approximately 80% of the Soviet level.
    3. Alex_59
      16 January 2016 09: 31 New
      +3
      Quote: Alexander Romanov
      Put a minus for the graphics, if you delve into the internet, then for the same 2012 year the Russian Air Force received 60 new aircraft.

      Duck do the same research as mine but with greater certainty. I am for it.
  4. LÄRZ
    LÄRZ 16 January 2016 07: 19 New
    +4
    Charts amazingly show both the depth of the fall and the dynamics of growth. The laws of economics are such that the consequences of an incorrect (or specially incorrect) decision will be visible only after a few years. Judging by the growth charts, the decisions were right.
    1. Alexander Romanov
      Alexander Romanov 16 January 2016 07: 55 New
      -2
      Quote: LÄRZ
      Charts amazingly show both the depth of the fall and the dynamics of growth

      With these charts, you can calmly go to the toilet! I proved it to you above.
  5. Valery 1966
    Valery 1966 16 January 2016 07: 20 New
    +4
    To talk about aircraft carriers, you need to know well and I would even say you need to be a naval expert. Actually, the USA has 11 and not 10 of them :-) If you, as an expert, want to say something sensible about aircraft carriers, then there’s no mistake in their number. Does Russia Need Aircraft Carriers? Any country with access to the seas and oceans and positioning itself as a power with political world interests needs aircraft carriers. Look at China - they bought the hull of the former Soviet aircraft carrier and built their first aircraft carrier on it. And I am sure that this is only the beginning, they will also stamp their other Carriers with it - and the Chinese are not fools - we also know this. As one Soviet admiral said - Only an enemy of the country or may consider that a country with a world name does not need aircraft carriers. And there is simply no point in discussing this topic - Russia needs an aircraft carrier fleet - and the enemies of Russia do not need an aircraft carrier Russian fleet and the issue should be closed ..
    1. Idiot
      Idiot 16 January 2016 10: 14 New
      +3
      Russia is the only transcontinental power. This is our unique geopolitical feature - like a bone in the throat for Western and other "partners." What does this give us? Independence in all respects from the world's sea carriers and hegemons - the Anglo-Saxons who control the oceans and sea trade routes. Due to the gigantic extent of these trade routes, the Anglo-Saxons are forced to have gigantic navy scattered around the world. Accordingly, we do not need to have the Navy of similar effectiveness, and geography allows us to do without aircraft carriers at all. It so happened that Russia has as many fleets as it has access to the sea and the strategic objective of all fleets is to prevent the enemy from delivering a global strike with nuclear weapons and other means on our territory
      1. Idiot
        Idiot 16 January 2016 10: 27 New
        +5
        and cover for the SSBN before they strike back. All! Why do we need aircraft carriers, if aviation can successfully be based both on the mainland and on numerous islands, such as in the Arctic (which are now actively settling in). Plus air defense systems and coastal anti-ship missiles. All this in a complex will multiply by zero any AUG. Baltic: a similar situation, the Kaliningrad enclave allows you to control the entire region. The Black Sea: in fact, it has become our inland, and with the annexation of the Crimea and with unconditional dominance in the Caspian Sea, we can now control the Mediterranean region, as evidenced by the successful implementation of the Syrian operation. Pacific: not an inch of land in Japan. The Sea of ​​Okhotsk is the inland sea of ​​Russia, while we own all the Kuril Islands. That is why they howl from year to year. No economy. Anglo-Saxons need to lock the Pacific Fleet in their bases.
        1. Idiot
          Idiot 16 January 2016 10: 42 New
          +1
          So why do we need aircraft carriers? Only for prestige and demonstration of the flag. The presence of carrier-based aviation in the Navy is mandatory for a power that positions itself as the Great. Also, deck pilots are the elite of any Air Force, this is SCHOOL. To prepare and maintain the necessary professional level, one desk is enough. While we can not afford more. But, in my opinion, we can do without aircraft carriers as a serious striking force of the fleet. Therefore, I personally regard the calls to build aircraft carriers as wrecking. I do not want to think that this is poor mind. And I would not compare China with Russia. We are in different weight categories. And in general, I believe that this country is very much overestimated. They have a lot of money and people. But how many victories have they had in their history?
        2. The comment was deleted.
      2. The comment was deleted.
    2. The comment was deleted.
  6. semirek
    semirek 16 January 2016 07: 21 New
    0
    Indeed, a lot is written about our Navy, but in this article I did not learn anything new for myself.
  7. Cobra77
    Cobra77 16 January 2016 08: 25 New
    +5
    “We can confidently say that the most difficult times are behind us” - I would like to believe, but the trend and economic situation suggests the opposite. I'm afraid we can expect a revision of the military order for the army in the coming years towards "optimization." It is also not only the quantity of equipment produced. It is also a matter of industrial base, repair, scientific base, engineering base. But everything is sad so far. In fact, we just stopped the fall. Which of course is good in itself. But we are very bad with competent engineers and their training. Disgusting, if not disastrous, in the machine tool industry. We are buying machines in the DPRK, Karl! In the DPRK! Very bad in electronics. In fact, in order for us to reach growth in the military-industrial complex, we need to re-raise entire industries. And these are factories and research centers and educational institutions. And the main thing is a lot of money and time.
    1. rkkasa xnumx
      rkkasa xnumx 16 January 2016 09: 02 New
      +6
      Quote: cobra77
      We are buying machines in the DPRK, Karl! In the DPRK!

      And why is it actually surprising?
      The DPRK is a fairly large country (25 million people), and it is not the economists, lawyers, and traders who train and educate there, but the workers-engineers.
    2. Extraneous
      Extraneous 16 January 2016 16: 13 New
      +1
      For the production of its machine tools, the USSR bought machines in the same Germany. Yes, and a lot of precision work was carried out on machines exported from Europe after the Second World War. The witness himself is how a German turning and rotary machine was installed in our workshop, which is required for the manufacture of parts of our turning and rotary machines. Each country is strong in its own field of production, in which it has no equal. The pursuit of everything at once is not productive. We need to develop what we know best and exchange for what others can do better. So it always has been.
      1. sa-ag
        sa-ag 16 January 2016 18: 07 New
        0
        Quote: Stranger
        So it always has been.

        So, and not quite like that, during the USSR it was necessary to do it ourselves, plus the cooperation of the CMEA countries, but which schools developed for this, so it’s hard to call
  8. Lexus
    Lexus 16 January 2016 10: 38 New
    +3
    Quote: cobra77
    “We can confidently say that the most difficult times are behind us” - I would like to believe, but the trend and the economic situation suggests otherwise .... In fact, in order for us to grow in the military-industrial complex, we need to re-raise entire industries. And these are factories and research centers and educational institutions. And the main thing is a lot of money and time.


    Ten years did not pay attention to us, considering that we were no longer capable of anything. Now we are purposefully pressed (sanctions, external management of monetary policy, oil price)
    Pay attention to how the rhetoric of the first persons has changed since the beginning of 2016 - they offer to negotiate mattresses. Because mattresses still chopped us up on the economic fronts.
    In an economic war, we, with our downs, thieves, and enemies from the government, cannot help defeating or dodge.
    This year will show if we can do something now.
    And the future is schools, universities and research institutes, their remnants destroyed today (words of the down of the count).
    And also the population - who will build it? (Now there will be another demographic pit, for comparison Russia 140 million, China 1500 million, Egypt 80, and the latter has increased the population by 2! Times in twenty years!)
  9. Santa Fe
    Santa Fe 16 January 2016 10: 58 New
    +2
    Alexey, for your interest in the topic - 5
    for the analysis - the one you think

    1997 year - the total tonnage of 427 tons, which is a lie. This year, the K-150 Tomsk nuclear submarine missile carrier entered service, and this is 14 000 tons of surface displacement.

    and so the whole table


    2003 year, you have 5700 tons, from where, in that year, one Tatarstan patrol ship (2000 tons) was commissioned

    2007 year - 12307 tons, from where, in that year to the fleet not a single large warship was handed over

    2015 year - 38 thousand tons - where? only 2 diesel submarines were accepted into operation (Stary Oskol and Krasnodar)
    1. Vadim237
      Vadim237 16 January 2016 22: 05 New
      0
      From 38000 tons, add a dozen other auxiliary vessels to the two submarines.
    2. Alex_59
      17 January 2016 00: 36 New
      0
      Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
      and so the whole table

      Make it better mine. No problem. Errors and errors are possible. I am not a god.
      Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
      1997 year - the total tonnage of 427 tons, which is a lie. This year, the K-150 Tomsk nuclear submarine missile carrier entered service, and this is 14 000 tons of surface displacement.

      Not accepted. Included in the 1996 year, as date of delivery to the fleet officially 30.12.1996
      Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
      2003 year, you have 5700 tons, from where, in that year, one Tatarstan patrol ship (2000 tons) was commissioned

      2003 year. Delivered: 1 TFR ave. 11660, 1 RCA ave. 12411 and something else there auxiliary.
      Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
      2007 year - 12307 tons, from where, in that year, not a single large warship was transferred to the fleet

      2007 year. Delivered: 1 TFR ave. 20380 (14.11.2007, the parent project "Stereguschiy"), 1 GIS ave. 19910, 1 TFP ave. 1799 (16.02.2007), 1 RB, ave. 14970, etc.
      Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
      2015 year - 38 thousand tons - where? only 2 diesel submarines were accepted into operation (Stary Oskol and Krasnodar)

      2015 year. Delivered: 1 TFR ave. 11356, 1 TFR ave. 22350 (although I probably made a mistake here, it has not yet been commissioned), 2 MPC ave. 21631, 1 FULL, pr. 12700, 2 DEPL ave. 636, 1 SS 21300, 4 boats ave. 23040, 6 boats ave. 23370, 1 TH ave. 23180, 2 BGK ave. 19920, 1 OIP ave. 22010, 4 sea tugboat, 4 raid tugboats and something else. However, 2015 year is possible with errors, because not all data is available on auxiliary vessels and for a number of ships there is no clarity; nevertheless, they have already been delivered, or they will only be returned at the beginning of 2016. In any case, trends do not change these errors.
      1. Santa Fe
        Santa Fe 17 January 2016 08: 42 New
        +1
        Quote: Alex_59
        and something else there auxiliary.

        "Something auxiliary" do not even take into account

        count only warships with air defense systems and submarines, everything else is dust in the eyes. The cost and complexity of the construction and testing of any tugboat, landing craft or hydrographic vessel are negligible against the background of the cost of one radar antenna array. And if necessary, these tugboats, boats and RTOs can be built in a few months in any required quantity. Well, as a result, the combat value of tugboats is also insignificant. That is the whole point.

        It is just right to introduce a coefficient linking the cost and labor for the creation of combat and auxiliary ships. To complete the picture.
        Quote: Alex_59
        given: 1 TFR pr. 20380 (14.11.2007, the head of the project "Stereguschiy"),

        If you use letters - the Guardian was accepted into the composition six months later.
        Quote: Alex_59
        1 TFR ave. 11356, 1 TFR ave. 22350 (although here I probably made a mistake, it has not been delivered yet)

        That's why I respect Alexei, for impartiality. Honest man, sincerely shake my hand.
        1. Alex_59
          18 January 2016 07: 21 New
          0
          Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
          "Something auxiliary" do not even take into account

          I do not agree. On the eve of World War II, our admirals reasoned the same way. Give us cruisers, battleships and destroyers, and more. And there are all kinds of minesweepers, let alone landing ships, diving bots, supply vessels, navigation support vessels, rescue vessels ... this is boring. This gigantomania resulted in the deaths of thousands of sailors and soldiers. Therefore, the fact that a rather substantial number of auxiliary vessels are being built today is extremely correct. Daydreaming on aircraft carriers must be left for later.
  10. Idiot
    Idiot 16 January 2016 11: 03 New
    0
    PS To the above, I would like to add that the need for the presence or absence of aircraft carriers in the Russian Navy is dictated primarily by our geopolitical interests. The geopolitical interests of any nation are the possession of the area of ​​their residence and the ability to protect this area (to ensure security). This means that the location of our megacities, military-industrial complex facilities and industry as a whole, on territories remote from the coast, requires us to strengthen, in the first place, the army and air force (VKS). Well, the Strategic Missile Forces are at the top of the pyramid. There are too few of us to be able to retain such gigantic and rich territories without nuclear weapons. Navy perform an auxiliary function. Certainly very important, but not key.
  11. Santa Fe
    Santa Fe 16 January 2016 11: 21 New
    +8
    What is the reason for this debate? Why do we compare the current successes of the military-industrial complex of the Russian Federation with the successes of the military-industrial complex of Russia in the 1990-s (objectively vile time, during which the collapse of a great country and predatory privatization took place). And every time it turns out, despite all the militaristic waste on Channel One, the current successes in shipbuilding differ from successes in the 90-s. within the margin of error. STABILITY, her leg !!

    The reason is that Russia is integrated into the global economy as one of the lowest-performing "pipe economies." Everything else is attached.

    Creating a developed industry, investing in the construction of a high-tech economy in the Russian Federation is not beneficial to Gazprom and the company. All these are costs, lost profits from oil exports. For the same reason, the middle class is not profitable - with its requests for foreign goods and equipment. Money is flowing out of the country. Unprofitable. In return - unnecessary questions and worries. Why?

    The volume of oil production in the Russian Federation (10 million barrels per day) corresponds to the volume of production in Saud. Arabia The population of Saud. Arabia - 35 million people, the population of Russia - 142 million people. Objectively, 80% of Russians are superfluous; they are a burden for Rosneft and Gazprom. Obvious facts, without any policy.
    1. xtur
      xtur 16 January 2016 15: 01 New
      0
      > Oil production in the Russian Federation (10 million barrels per day) corresponds to the production in Saud. Arabia The population of Saud. Arabia - 35 million people, the population of Russia - 142 million people. Objectively, 80% of Russians are superfluous; they are a burden for Rosneft and Gazprom.

      it's true - but not all. Never in the history of Russia, the Russian Federation, the Republic of Ingushetia, the USSR, commercial interests have not determined the policy pursued by the authorities.

      Gazprom and Rosneft will resist the policy pursued by the authorities on industrial development, which is why all the media, most of which belong to Gazprom, are throwing dirt on the USSR and singing extreme liberalism, financing all the forces within the country that do not want industrial development.
      But this only slows down the vector of change, no more.
      1. Vadim237
        Vadim237 16 January 2016 22: 13 New
        0
        That's not true.
    2. cap
      cap 16 January 2016 17: 09 New
      0
      Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

      Creating a developed industry, investing in the construction of a high-tech economy in the Russian Federation is not beneficial to Gazprom and the company. All these are costs, lost profits from oil exports. For the same reason, the middle class is not profitable - with its requests for foreign goods and equipment. Money is flowing out of the country. Unprofitable. In return - unnecessary questions and worries. Why?


      Really why. Everything is bought. Sit smoking. It is sad to read such an advertisement.
      "In this section we bring to your attention the most popular and common machines manufactured in the USSR. If you know the model of the necessary machine, then by clicking on the appropriate link, you will receive a list of modern analogues from various European manufacturers."http://www.novator-grp.ru/eng/stanki-ussr
    3. Vadim237
      Vadim237 16 January 2016 22: 31 New
      -1
      It is even more profitable for Gazprom and other companies to develop industry on the territory of Russia since foreign deliveries of equipment are too expensive, and in the current situation are not possible at all - as an example, Gazprombank took Uralmash under its wing in 2015 - paid off the company's debts and bought new equipment. You found this nonsense - "The volume of oil production in Russia (10 million barrels per day) corresponds to the volume of production in Saudi Arabia. The population of Saudi Arabia is 35 million people, the population of Russia is 142 million people. Objectively, 80% of Russians superfluous, they are a burden for Rosneft and Gazprom. Obvious facts, without any policy "- The population of Russia is now more than 146 million, oil production amounted to 2015 million tons in 257," 80% of Russians are a burden for Rosneft and Gazprom "- we have that, the entire population on the balance sheet of these two firms - what would be a burden for them? - For them, the population of Russia is primarily workers, shareholders and consumers of products, and without this all of these companies simply will not exist.
    4. Alex_59
      17 January 2016 00: 42 New
      0
      Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
      What is the reason for this debate?

      The fact is that before writing articles, some authors need to delve deeper into the essence of the issues about which they are going to write. And the fact that you do not need to customize reality for your speculation. And so - no reason. Everything written in the article does not mean that everything became suddenly fine today. Our situation is difficult. It just started some progress towards correction, but so far too sluggish.
      1. Santa Fe
        Santa Fe 17 January 2016 08: 47 New
        0
        Well, why so wound up, firstly, everyone has the right to their own opinion
        secondly, everything is so.
        Quote: Alex_59
        It just started some progress towards correction, but so far too sluggish.

        After 15 years have passed, they are so sluggish that we are trying to compare them with 90, which we here call the "period of decline." And while the result is not obvious. What else can I say? You know everything yourself.

        And, if for garlic, 90 was introduced more warships are operational than now. And this causes the template to break.
  12. Cobra77
    Cobra77 16 January 2016 13: 15 New
    +3
    Quote: rkkasa 81
    Quote: cobra77
    We are buying machines in the DPRK, Karl! In the DPRK!

    And why is it actually surprising?
    The DPRK is a fairly large country (25 million people), and it is not the economists, lawyers, and traders who train and educate there, but the workers-engineers.


    And this is not a surprise, it is a shame. The Union’s engineering and science school was the best on the globe. Where is the DPRK. And now we buy CNC machines from her, because it is cheaper and there are no bookmarks.

    Well, many "children" laugh when they hear about the DPRK. Like the Papuans at the local dictator. However, they somehow do not understand much that, for example, to make a nuclear bomb it is necessary to organize entire industries. And this is not for the Papuans.
    1. Vadim237
      Vadim237 16 January 2016 22: 44 New
      0
      But are you really? Or we produce and purchase foreign machines - we are on the general market http://www.euro-stanok.ru/proizv/?PAGEN_1=2
  13. silver_roman
    silver_roman 16 January 2016 13: 28 New
    +1
    I’ll also leave statistics behind the brackets.
    I can only say that Russia does not need so many huge Air Force and Navy as in the USSR. Now the tactics are different, and the capabilities of weapons are completely different. A frigate can give heat no worse than a cruiser 30 years ago. I am not talking about general firepower, but only about the flexibility of capabilities and the nomenclature of goals.
    That and compete with the US naval power in the Navy does not make sense. For example, at times we had more tanks, because plans were different.
  14. Koshak
    Koshak 16 January 2016 16: 42 New
    +1
    UPPO, which produced, in particular, autopilots, "has not been feeding and not burying since the 90s." Do you need your avionics? Or do skis not ride on asphalt?
    1. Vadim237
      Vadim237 16 January 2016 22: 46 New
      0
      We have its own avionics KRET engaged.
  15. Mountain shooter
    Mountain shooter 16 January 2016 17: 32 New
    +3
    The fact that the military-industrial complex is "unmasking", to those who are in this production, is visible to the naked eye. Production plans have grown significantly, orders for microelectronics and micromechanics have simply become a lot. The directors who do not cope with the plans - are removed for one or two - I know more than one example.
    Effective managers start to get hit hard. The appetite for kickbacks decreased to "cosmetic." And the machine tool builders slowly "went", and the toolmakers.
    1. Saratoga833
      Saratoga833 16 January 2016 18: 39 New
      0
      Still Putin V.V. change the government, headed by the virtual helmet Ayfonchik, which was pulled over his head, restore order in the financial sector, get out of the yoke of the dollar and change the internal liberal policy leading to the swamp!
  16. Приговор
    Приговор 16 January 2016 17: 34 New
    +2
    With the collapse of the USSR, we lost more than half the population. We have lost vast territories. Lost colossal industrial capacity and resources. And the fact that today's Russia has reached at least half the power of the former USSR is already a miracle.
  17. Crown
    Crown 16 January 2016 17: 35 New
    +2
    GDP didn’t say all at once, it’s necessary to endure for about 2-3 years. Plants are being built, slowly. But still moving. Remember how several years ago pictures of looted military units were looked at in VO, and what is happening with the RF Armed Forces? Is it heaven and earth.
    1. Vadim237
      Vadim237 16 January 2016 22: 50 New
      0
      One and a half - two a day, the pace of commissioning of small and medium-sized plants is very decent.
  18. nnz226
    nnz226 16 January 2016 17: 45 New
    +1
    It is clear that an auxiliary fleet is needed, but the tables show "average hospital temperature"! Auxiliary ships in the number of commissioned - percent 60-70! And the fighting ones are miserable. moreover, anti-sabotage boats (a necessary thing, but it does not increase the striking power of the Navy !!!) belong to combat ones, so there isn’t much "optimism". In 2015, they were planning to hand over the Black Sea Fleet of the Russian Federation as many as 6 “Varshavyanyok” to the Black Sea, only 2 pieces reached ...
  19. Cobra77
    Cobra77 16 January 2016 18: 00 New
    +1
    Quote: Stranger
    For the production of its machine tools, the USSR bought machines in the same Germany. Yes, and a lot of precision work was carried out on machines exported from Europe after the Second World War. The witness himself is how a German turning and rotary machine was installed in our workshop, which is required for the manufacture of parts of our turning and rotary machines. Each country is strong in its own field of production, in which it has no equal. The pursuit of everything at once is not productive. We need to develop what we know best and exchange for what others can do better. So it always has been.


    It's one thing to buy to copy and further develop your own. Another thing is stupid to buy because it is easier. And taking into account the fact that hell who sells the latest and without bookmarks, it’s fatal not to develop their machine tool industry. And now we have 95% of imported machines. For a country of Burkina Faso level, it is possible to concentrate on individual areas. For the Russian Federation, this is similar to death. We must develop all sectors. We can hammer a bolt on iPhones, but key industries must be their own and not at the level of the last century. Otherwise, instead of a developed country, which is in no way inferior to any western one, we will again slide to the level of RI where 90% of the population are uneducated peasants, and most of the equipment was purchased abroad. But then balls, a crunch of French rolls, a junker ....
    1. Vadim237
      Vadim237 16 January 2016 22: 58 New
      0
      Recently, in the Ulyanovsk Region, we opened a joint production of 3D CNC machines - DMG with a productivity of 1000 machines per year, with a localization of production of 50%, by 2020 it will reach 90%, one such machine - a processing center replaces 20 conventional machines, so what about our production machine tools, do not worry - this is not the only enterprise producing machine tools in Russia.
    2. Vadim237
      Vadim237 16 January 2016 23: 11 New
      0
      Here is one example http://sovtehmet.ru/catalog/uslugi/sborka-stankov-v-rossii/
  20. The comment was deleted.
  21. kotuk_ha_oxote
    kotuk_ha_oxote 17 January 2016 01: 15 New
    +3
    Quote: Vadim237
    Here is one example http://sovtehmet.ru/catalog/uslugi/sborka-stankov-v-rossii/

    Assembly under license - a reason for pride?
    1. Vadim237
      Vadim237 17 January 2016 10: 46 New
      0
      Of course, the reason - part of the parts for these machines will be produced in Russia - and an excellent technological opportunity to reduce the backlog from foreign developments - just take it and improve it - it will be much faster and cheaper than creating machines from scratch.
      1. Former battalion commander
        Former battalion commander 17 January 2016 23: 03 New
        +1
        part of the parts for these machines will be produced in Russia


        The essence of any production is NOT a PART of details, but a COMPLETE cycle from the DEVELOPMENT of design documentation, from the DEVELOPMENT of production technology, from TRAINING from the master to the workers, from the material provision of production, from the creation of COOPERATION links to the most SERIAL PRODUCTION. And in the absence of ATTENTION ONE LINK in this chain, the whole idea will not cost even a partridge’s devoured egg ... And here you are, seriously speaking, talking nonsense about "EXCELLENT (?) Technological ability to reduce the gap from". Without knowing the essence of production, you’ll be silent for a while you look at a rag and you would pass for a clever ...
  22. Cobra77
    Cobra77 17 January 2016 02: 17 New
    +1
    Quote: Vadim237
    But are you really? Or we produce and purchase foreign machines - we are on the general market http://www.euro-stanok.ru/proizv/?PAGEN_1=2


    AND? You may still be interested in general statistics on the country. And especially make pores on complex high-precision machines. I had something to do with working with them. 100% import.

    I’ll tell you a funny story, if you carefully watch programs about our military-industrial complex, you can sometimes see machine tools in the part of reports from factories, and you can see the nameplates on them. Then google them smile
  23. tolmachiev51
    tolmachiev51 17 January 2016 03: 42 New
    +1
    Judging by the tonnage, the military-industrial complex makes orders so that shipyards do not stop !!! and this “so far” is good, although one cannot look at them in their present state, without tears — Demidov workshops.
  24. Cobra77
    Cobra77 17 January 2016 08: 22 New
    +2
    Quote: Vadim237
    Recently, in the Ulyanovsk Region, we opened a joint production of 3D CNC machines - DMG with a productivity of 1000 machines per year, with a localization of production of 50%, by 2020 it will reach 90%, one such machine - a processing center replaces 20 conventional machines, so what about our production machine tools, do not worry - this is not the only enterprise producing machine tools in Russia.


    You apparently do not quite understand what an industrial machine of high precision and particularly high precision is. Ordinary CNC, but I can also assemble in a garage in a couple of weeks from Chinese parts and some kind of mother. Only it is applicable for handicrafts. And not for the conveyor. And even more so for the military-industrial complex. 50% of localization is nothing in fact. Especially if you take as a percentage of the mass smile This means that we do not own the technology. We also collect Nisans, localization of 50%. Now tell me, can we produce them ourselves? Apparently not. 90% by 2020 - do not tell. Yes, and then you need 100%. You now know that we essentially do not have bearings? We buy in China. For once the "effective managers" seemed that it was more profitable and simpler. Need I say the scope of the bearings? smile
    1. Vadim237
      Vadim237 17 January 2016 10: 41 New
      +1
      I make custom-made plain bearings, last year my business produced 218000 of these bearings - brass, by the way on the same DMG machines - in China, buying bearings is now an expensive pleasure.
      1. Former battalion commander
        Former battalion commander 17 January 2016 22: 49 New
        0
        The fact that you produce bearings does not mean that these bearings correspond to something and will work as they should ... As far as I know, the production of bearings is not such an easy task as to make them on some DMG. Such a bearing may fit in to suck a goof on a BMV, but put it in a tank and it is not known whether that tank will be able to brush off 600 km in the cold and not jam which hub ... So, flaunt empty numbers about the number and "localization" would you walk in the forest.
      2. voyaka uh
        voyaka uh 21 January 2016 11: 50 New
        +1
        for Vadim 237:
        I'm so sorry. The only entrepreneur on the forum who produces something important,
        instead of universal approval earns cons. Attitude to private business ...

        The mind is incomprehensible ...
  25. Former battalion commander
    Former battalion commander 17 January 2016 22: 41 New
    +1
    Here would be more such articles without snot of emotion and bile of empty criticism ONLY FIGURES! And everything becomes clear who and what is worth, in what sky or baseboard is the country's security.
  26. Cobra77
    Cobra77 18 January 2016 00: 51 New
    -1
    Quote: Vadim237
    I make custom-made plain bearings, last year my business produced 218000 of these bearings - brass, by the way on the same DMG machines - in China, buying bearings is now an expensive pleasure.


    In the VAZ can such places where you can put. And in the tank gearbox? And to the turbine? What accuracy class do these of your bearings have? And what is the manufactured nomenclature? Well, brass slip is a kindergarten really. Purely cheap consumer goods. No offense. They are also needed. And the fact that you do them in the Russian Federation is good. But this is not the level of technology that is required.
  27. Bene valete
    Bene valete 18 January 2016 19: 05 New
    0
    Great article, good graphics, etc., without embellishment!
  28. voyaka uh
    voyaka uh 21 January 2016 11: 44 New
    +2
    For the Russian economy, the normal
    annual production: approximately 30 ships and 100
    combat aircraft per year. More lead to tearing the economy,
    less to reduce combat effectiveness.
    Moreover, aviation is much, much more important than the continental fleet
    powers.
  29. ASUR
    ASUR 25 January 2016 07: 39 New
    0
    It seems to me it would be appropriate to say that both the "area" of our country and the number of us are now "slightly" less
  30. Mushroom
    Mushroom April 20 2016 06: 18 New
    0
    “This means that in reality the state abandoned military shipbuilding in the period 1990-1991” - judging by the schedule, this is an invented lie. The refusal occurred precisely from the age of 91, and not earlier. Article - minus
  31. BEECH 1972
    BEECH 1972 11 June 2016 05: 25 New
    0
    Quote: Alexander Romanov
    He put a minus for the graphics, if you delve into the internet, then in the same year 2012 the Russian Air Force received 60 new planes. And then in the same spirit, and if you take it with those built under foreign contracts, then even more. With planes the same topic.

    Can you guarantee that all 60 aircraft received by the Air Force were built in 2012? Actually, the author does not have a table of supplies of military vehicles to the troops, but the total number of boards built during the year. Moreover, if you were a little more attentive and objective, then while excavating you would have noticed that more than two-thirds of the equipment was received from repairs or upgrades.
  32. BEECH 1972
    BEECH 1972 11 June 2016 05: 35 New
    0
    Quote: Alexander Romanov
    Quote: LÄRZ
    That is, deep "excavations" in the internet are the ultimate truth?

    2012 MO report on delivered equipment for you what?
    For other years do you dig up?
    For 2014, according to the scheme, 57 aircraft and 120 turntables.
    Now reality
    2014 year
    81 combat, 20 educational and seven transport and special.
    The number of delivered vehicles included:
    24 Su-35 fighters,
    21 Su-30SM fighter,
    8 Su-30M2 fighters
    18 front-line bombers Su-34,
    10 deck fighter MiG-29K / KUB
    In addition to the listed combat aircraft, the Russian Air Force also received 20 Yak-130 combat training aircraft, one Tu-214ON Open Skies observation aircraft, four An-148-100 passenger aircraft and two An-140-100 cargo-passenger aircraft
    .
    And on turntables, 120 was delivered to the Air Force, but about 300 turntables were built in total complexity. This includes both export and citizen. Therefore, the author found graphics of very, very low quality and based on them he wrote an article hi

    Regarding the above, I repeat again. The author cited the number of military vehicles collected during a given year. And not completed, repaired or undergoing modernization and repair. And it is far from a fact that all the planes and helicopters assembled in 2014, in the same year, entered training centers or combat units.
  33. BEECH 1972
    BEECH 1972 11 June 2016 14: 42 New
    0
    Quote: Valery 1966
    And the Chinese are not fools - we also know this.

    - Well, of course, the Chinese are not fools! They all repeat or simply copy for the powers that be. And if you have the power to delve into what is happening and to extract something for yourself and analyze, you will also see it.
    Quote: Valery 1966
    As one Soviet admiral said - Only an enemy of the country or may consider that a country with a world name does not need aircraft carriers. And there’s simply no point in discussing this topic - Russia needs an aircraft carrier fleet - And carrier Russian fleet is not needed for the enemies of Russia and the question should be closed.

    - Do you know why the command of the Soviet Navy, the admirals who forged the sea power the state that still serves us, did not need an aircraft carrier fleet like the United States? Yes, because just they were not fools, much less enemies of their country. All that managed to untwist the command of the Soviet Navy and the leadership of the country was to give permission for the development and construction of a series of ships capable of not only solving the combat missions assigned to them in air defense and anti-aircraft defense, but also independently defending themselves even in the TAKR single voyage. In total, it was planned to introduce two aircraft carrier groups into each fleet of an oceanic status, one of which would deal with air defense tasks, and the other with anti-aircraft defense. Plus, two reserve groups based on the bases of the KSF and the Pacific Fleet Pacific Fleet. Since according to the military doctrine adopted both in the USSR and later in the Russian Federation, its main articles are the achievement of military-strategic parity in the field of strategic nuclear forces and a purely defensive strategy for protecting the state’s borders. Withdrawing the armed forces and conducting military operations abroad only at the official request of the allied states. And such a powerful carrier fleet as the United States and its vassal states is needed only for military aggression against underdeveloped countries, protection of their own colonial interests and military blackmail again of weak states, including their own vassal allies. This is very clearly seen in the course evolution of the USA ACG during any military conflicts, or during the adoption, under certain pressure, by the US allies, including European ones, of any decisions unfavorable for their states. Even the current number of aircraft carriers in the US fleets, many seem unreasonably overpriced. Since there are many idiots sitting in the American military command, therefore, while some fools claim the invulnerability of their very powerful ACGs, others are well aware of their highly vulnerable position, in view of their increased visibility, low maneuverability and low-speed. As for the Famous Missile Defense, look at the statistics on the use of obsolete R 17 missiles during the shelling of Israel by Israel and Saudi Arabia. When 40 and 46-48 R 17 missiles were launched in Israel and 47-17 in Saudi Arabia, no more than 158 R-28 missiles fell into the zone of operation of the American Patriots of the latter at that time, for which a total of 20 missiles were fired. According to the Israeli Ministry of Defense, including the words of the Americans, the Patriots, despite the cost of missile defense (including the case with the expenditure of 9 units on target, managed to intercept no more than XNUMX% of the missiles launched by Iraqis. If you believe the Control Chamber US administration taken from the Washington Profile resource, then generally no more than XNUMX% of successful interceptions:
    [media = http: //web.archive.org/web/20101127065237/http: //www.washprofile.org/en/n
    ode / 5915]
    1. BEECH 1972
      BEECH 1972 11 June 2016 14: 44 New
      0
      Although during the war, figures up to 100% of successful interceptions were also called in American sources, now figures up to 52-80% are indicated. Modern research data by Israeli experts show that not a single missile was shot down at all over Israel. And the radio messages declared during the conflict about one R-17 shot down over Israel, like a number of other interceptions, did not receive any confirmation. There is also information on the military blog "BMPD" on the relatively recent use of missiles of this type:
      [media = http: //bmpd.livejournal.com/1369075.html]
      And again, one piece of information sounds from the lips of the American military or their allies, but from independent sources the situation is seen in a completely different way, a little more objective or something. I think with the use of modern missile systems manufactured by the Russian Federation, the probability of successfully hitting targets protected by the NATO defense will reach at least 95%. Therefore, the groupings of modern Russian RTOs with appropriate support by reconnaissance and target designation, equipped with modern weapons, will be able to quite effectively deal with the very costly operation and production of AUGs of any enemy. Aircraft carriers are undoubtedly needed, but by no means to confirm their status, as you say, and not with a purely defensive strategy. But only in order to fight, figuratively speaking savages who simply do not have modern anti-ship means available. And to the coasts of savages armed with modern Russian anti-ship missiles, the formidable and unsinkable AUGs of the USA, for some reason they prefer not to meddle. Why would this be interesting?