Military Review

The National Interest has included the Russian submarine fleet among the main threats to the US Navy.

71
In the edition The National Interest A material appeared in which the military expert of the publication Harry Kazianis compiles a list of weapons capable of destroying the American navy. The list includes submarines of such states as Russia, China and Sweden. RIA News leads a piece of material Kazianis:
Nuclear submarines and submarines with ballistic missiles on board, aircraft carriers and surface combat ships under the guidance of the best-trained military personnel are nothing compared to a theoretical clash with the Russian, Chinese, Iranian or other rivals.



The submission states that the potential opponents of the United States have in their arsenal super-silent submarines, which should be the reason for the adjustment of the Pentagon’s tactics in case of a possible collision with such military equipment. If you follow the logic of the American expert, today Washington has no such tactic in the arsenal. Or simply, Harry Kazianis is not quite aware of the US tactical arsenal.

Analyzing the Swedish submarine fleet, an NI expert writes that sometimes even cheaper submarines (cheaper compared to the US) "are capable of imposing vanity."

Greatest threat to fleet The USA, the same Casianis calls the submarine fleet of Russia, which, according to him, "doubled its rates."

The National Interest has included the Russian submarine fleet among the main threats to the US Navy.


From the material:

However, if we talk about modernity, then Russia "doubled the stakes" in advancing its Navy. Moscow is developing an even more deadly class of boats
Photos used:
http://function.mil.ru
71 comment
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. pvv113
    pvv113 28 January 2016 07: 15 New
    15
    The same threat to the US Navy, Kazianis, calls the submarine fleet of Russia, which, in his words, "doubled its rates."

    This decision makes us feel proud of our fleet!
    1. Tatyana
      Tatyana 28 January 2016 07: 35 New
      +3
      The same threat to the US Navy, Kazianis, calls the submarine fleet of Russia, which, in his words, "doubled its rates."

      If this is true, then for Russia we can only rejoice.
      It remains to wish the Russian Navy to continue to maintain its superiority over the US Navy.
      1. Bongo
        Bongo 28 January 2016 07: 39 New
        19
        Quote: Tatiana
        We can only rejoice for Russia and it is necessary to continue to maintain our superiority in the Navy over the US Navy.

        Excuse me, but by what indicators does the Russian Navy surpass the US Navy besides fighting spirit naturally? what
        1. Kostyar
          Kostyar 28 January 2016 07: 55 New
          +2
          The same threat to the US Navy, Kazianis, calls the submarine fleet of Russia, which, in his words, "doubled its rates."

          And they didn’t fight, but the underpants are already full ... !!!!
          And that's great !!!
        2. gispanec
          gispanec 28 January 2016 08: 06 New
          +7
          Quote: Bongo
          Sorry, but for what indicators

          dizelyuham !! wassat
          1. Bongo
            Bongo 28 January 2016 08: 20 New
            +9
            Quote: gispanec
            dizelyuham !!

            You can’t argue with that good
          2. NEXUS
            NEXUS 28 January 2016 11: 45 New
            +6
            Quote: gispanec
            dizelyuham !!

            It’s too early to rejoice. By the 20th year we will get 8 Boreevs in two fleets. The deadlines for Ash-trees are postponed for at least two years. (And we need these MAPLs no less than 955).
            Lada, too, is in no hurry to bring to mind, due to problems with anaerobic SU. Kalina is only in the project. This is in brief on the underwater component of the fleet.
            On surface ships, things are even worse ... The destroyer Leader, which is needed yesterday, is still at the layout stage. We have not been building ships of the first rank for a long time.
            We build Buyan-M too long and not enough. Karakurt is only in the project.
            And the fact that the adversary voiced that our submarine fleet is a threat to them ... so the nuclear triad should be such by definition.
            1. gispanec
              gispanec 28 January 2016 14: 26 New
              +1
              Quote: NEXUS
              Rejoice early

              and where did you see the joy in my post? it is rather sarcasm and laughter through tears ......
        3. vic58
          vic58 28 January 2016 08: 45 New
          0
          They don't pray for him !! And, most importantly, he will not be "sent to the shores of Belarus", to show himself as an alpha male repeat
        4. meriem1
          meriem1 28 January 2016 13: 46 New
          -2
          Quote: Bongo
          Quote: Tatiana
          We can only rejoice for Russia and it is necessary to continue to maintain our superiority in the Navy over the US Navy.

          Excuse me, but by what indicators does the Russian Navy surpass the US Navy besides fighting spirit naturally? what

          The answer follows from the article. And also from what they are afraid of. BASTION complex for example !!!
      2. vovanpain
        vovanpain 28 January 2016 08: 23 New
        11
        Quote: Tatiana
        It remains to wish the Russian Navy to continue to maintain its superiority over the US Navy

        Tatyana, let’s still be realistic, we have approximately equal submarine forces, but the US surface fleet is still bigger than ours unfortunately. Well, what scare Russia, so now in America, small children are also scared of Russia. hi
        1. Tatyana
          Tatyana 28 January 2016 08: 52 New
          +4
          vovanpain
          Tatyana, let's still be realistic, yes we have roughly equal submarine forces, but the US surface fleet is still larger than ours Unfortunately.

          Brothers! Of course, I do not know all the details about the fleets of the Russian Federation and the USA.
          Yes, the US surface fleet is larger, but it is largely outdated. This is the time.
          Sometimes it’s not quantity that matters, but quality. These are two.
          And for the retaliatory strike against the United States, as far as I know, the submarine fleet is more important. These are three.
          But the most important thing is that I proceed from the following indirect realities, which are four.
          If now with the Russian Navy we would have had absolutely HANA, then SHISH Russia would have now snooped into Syria to defend its national interests - without marine protection of the rear from the US and NATO!
          Otherwise, we would be sitting in our country with tightened Russian “sovereignty” and be silent in a rag.
          These three and four make me happy.
          1. mvg
            mvg 28 January 2016 11: 43 New
            +1
            It’s good that besides the patriots, there are still just optimists ...
            And comrade Harry Kazianis just asks for money for the next tranche for the Navy. Nothing personal. The article makes no sense.
            Even "srach" cannot be arranged ... :-(
        2. vic58
          vic58 28 January 2016 08: 53 New
          +4
          Remember history: the battleships "Bismarck" and "Tirpitz"! The Yankees and their comrades were so afraid of them that they threw the PQ-17 civilian ships to the floor ... But there was only a rumor that "Tirpitz" went hunting ... and the "great" Lord Dudley did the whole Admiralty))) repeat
          And sank in the harbor hi
        3. veksha50
          veksha50 28 January 2016 09: 54 New
          +2
          Quote: vovanpain
          let's still be realistic, but we have roughly equal submarine forces



          Yes, how can I say ... A month or two ago there was a alignment of the fleets in our fleet - ours and Amers ... I would not say that the forces of the submarine fleets are equal ... Now if we, Russia, riveted the boats for another twenty years at the same pace as now, then an equal sign could be put ... So they also do not sleep and do not stand still ...

          The only thing that can be said is that our nuclear submarines with missiles on alert are capable of causing sufficient damage to the United States ... And this is a good deterrent for Americans ...

          But if we take diesel "black holes", equipped with calibers with YAGC (!!!) - then, perhaps, it is possible to talk about approximate equality ...
      3. g1v2
        g1v2 28 January 2016 18: 39 New
        +2
        Well, here again, it’s overwhelming among ordinary people. Our submarine fleet has just been put in order and we won’t have to talk about superiority for a long time. Mattresses are boiling for another reason - they see that the power of our fleet began to grow steadily. New weapons systems have been developed, ship designs to be built in the next 10 years, lead ships built, and some already serial new projects. But to talk about the fact that we at least caught up with the mattresses (plus their Anglo-Saxon friends) is not necessary. Yes, and such a task is unlikely. The task of the Navy for the coming years is to ensure the defense of our coasts and territorial waters, and this is what they are solving. At the same time, you can only compete with the economy to compete with the alliance of maritime powers in the payroll or fleet strength. That is why the task is being realized to ensure the country's defense capability using asymmetric methods. That is, not to build for each enemy aircraft carrier at a cost of 12 billion its own, but, for example, to build a cheaper submarine with missiles with characteristics that allow it to sink in case of what. Well this is to make it the easiest. hi
        1. Boa kaa
          Boa kaa 28 January 2016 21: 03 New
          +2
          Quote: g1v2
          Mattresses are boiling for another reason - they see that the power of our fleet began to grow steadily.
          And I also think this reason (not excluding others - the growth of appropriations, etc.) is the most compelling.
          The fact is that the USA, being a sea power, cannot allow anyone other than itself, beloved ones, to dominate in the Ocean! Therefore, they would like to strangle any emerging threat in the cradle. But the strategic nuclear forces of Russia interfere. Similarly with the PRC.
          Therefore, there is only one way out - qualitative and quantitative superiority over a potential adversary. Which they do all the post-war time.
          And then a conversation from a position of strength: after all, "Am's" interests are all over the world! ("Exceptional" nation, "hegemons" - what can you take from them!) Fleet! Here is a means of projecting power. Therefore, it was not for nothing that the Navy's "Fleet against the Coast" doctrine was adopted, which a priori assumes that all issues at sea with the enemy's fleet will be resolved at the beginning of the database.
          IMHO.
          1. NEXUS
            NEXUS 28 January 2016 21: 17 New
            +3
            Quote: Boa constrictor KAA
            Quote: g1v2
            Mattresses are boiling for another reason - they see that the power of our fleet began to grow steadily. And I also think this reason (not excluding others - the growth of appropriations, etc.) is the most compelling.

            The strength of our fleet is steadily growing, say ... Several RTOs and diesel submarines with three Boreas and one Yasen count the fleet reinforcement. And how many ships and submarines were decommissioned over the same period? One Sarych was barely completed and we dream to plan an aircraft carrier. So that the fleet strength grows, First of all, we need to update the fleet of destroyers, which are the backbone of any fleet. And we have the Leader destroyer only in the project. )
            We are building ships of the coastal zone, and not the ocean (the modernization of the TARK Nakhimov does not count). What kind of growth is there to talk about? Remind the flagship of the Black Sea Fleet in Moscow how many years?
            Japan has the oldest ship built in '91 and she continues to build and destroyers and submarines.
            Today we don’t have a significant strengthening of the fleet. We are at the very beginning of this revival of Russia as an ocean power. So when we begin to build destroyers, TARKs, ARKs, frigates and nuclear submarines in the quantities that are needed in a short time, then for power Fleet can talk.
            Sorry for the broken dishes, not evil, boiling. hi
            1. g1v2
              g1v2 28 January 2016 23: 01 New
              0
              Neither one, nor two, nor five destroyers will fundamentally strengthen us against the United States. Aircraft carriers too. We don’t and never will have so much money that we can throw them into a fleet of pennants comparable to their fleets. And this is a given.
              But a bunch of MPC, semi-frigates 20380 and a dapel is able to rely on the shore to protect it, for example, from aug. And it will cost us much cheaper. And for the attack there is apl and in the future submarines with anaerobic installations. Only they should not attack aug or fleet bases, but on trade routes.
              For any maritime power, maritime trade routes and their control are the cornerstone of all foreign policy. The United States, as I recall, produces about 23 percent of world GDP, and consumes up to 40 percent, and the remaining 17 percent mostly goes by sea. Exports from the United States also go by sea, their allies in Britain, Canada, Australia and Japan have the same situation. They are not afraid of our destroyers or aircraft carriers, but they are afraid of the fact that our submarines attack their supply routes. And always they were condescending to our surface fleet and seriously to the underwater - the Kriegsmarine taught them this at one time. That is why they respond hysterically to any strengthening of our and the Chinese submarine fleet.
              As for whether our Navy is strengthening. So I think that is growing, American experts also consider European and Chinese as well. But I do not impose my opinion. And by the way, the head frigate of project 22350, which is a full replacement for poor fellow Sarychev, has already passed almost all tests and I think that his admission to the fleet is only waiting for a date. So the lead ship from the series of ships in the ocean zone already exists. hi
              1. NEXUS
                NEXUS 29 January 2016 10: 33 New
                +1
                Quote: g1v2
                Neither one, nor two, nor five destroyers will fundamentally strengthen us against the United States.

                The Leader destroyer is a direct replacement for the Eagles, and in terms of combat capabilities it surpasses them by one and a half to two times. In my opinion, the same Zircon complex is being developed with such a range to nullify the "long arm" of the AUG air wing. And if there are such destroyers a dozen or more, then it will be possible to talk about really capable orders that can withstand the AUG. It makes no sense to build the same aircraft carrier, without new cover ships.
                Quote: g1v2
                But a bunch of MPC, semi-frigates 20380 and a dapel are able to rely on the shore to protect it, for example, from aug.

                At what range? If we are talking about Caliber-NK and Caliber-PL, then up to 300 km. And in the open ocean, what shall we do? RTOs don’t go that far.
                Quote: g1v2
                And by the way, the head frigate of project 22350, which is a full replacement for poor fellow Sarychev, has already passed almost all tests and I think that his admission to the fleet is only waiting for a date.

                Time to build 22350 does not bother you? And since when did the frigate become a ship of the first rank?
                1. g1v2
                  g1v2 29 January 2016 14: 09 New
                  0
                  I said do not strengthen fundamentally. So it’s clear that any carrier of cruise missiles from the MRK to the leader will strengthen us, but 2 or even 5 of them against 80 ships of the first rank only mattresses and 40 Japanese destroyers are all about nothing. Plus, the lead leader will be built every year for at least 8 years, if those according to the plan in 2019 are laid, we will get the first only in 2027-8. That is, it is a prospect, but a matter of the future. But ships of rank 2-3 under construction are real.
                  As for the range, so the same cr will stand, that on the MRC, that on the leaders, the range is the same. Protection of its territorial waters implies being in them first of all.
                  The time for building 22350 does not bother me at all, because according to the report in my summer GDP, the construction time was due to the fact that the pots were built in parallel with the development of systems and weapons under it. That is, it was built under what at that time did not exist. Now the project is developed and all systems are ready. Kasatonov’s delay only in turbine repair. But this year it will be repaired and at the end of the year it will go for testing. The following frigates will be built in about 4 years.
                  WELL AND FINALLY THE OCEAN ZONE SHIP AND THE FIRST RANK SHIP IS NOT SYNONYMIC. Frigate 22350 is a ship of the second rank, but at the same time a distant sea zone. In weapon systems, it is significantly stronger than 956 destroyers, and the cruising range is about the same. There is only one difference - displacement, the reduction of which is achieved by a significant share of system automation. And by the way, and destroyers and NPCs can be of the first and second rank. For example, Shrewd is a former second-level PKK. hi
                  1. NEXUS
                    NEXUS 29 January 2016 17: 41 New
                    +1
                    Quote: g1v2
                    So it’s clear that any carrier of cruise missiles from the MRK to the leader will strengthen us, but 2 or even 5 of them against 80 ships of the first rank only mattresses and 40 Japanese destroyers are all about nothing.

                    5 Leaders, of course, are against such an armada about nothing. But about 20-25 pieces, and even with 22350 frigates, in the number of 50 pieces can radically change the balance of forces. I'm talking not only about the CD, but also about the anti-ship missile system of the Zircon project, with a range of 1000-1200 km (which is essentially the range of the AUG air wing). But this is still all "Wishlist." Of course, you can dream of an aircraft carrier in this situation of 90 aircraft, then Russia will de facto become an ocean power. But ... I wanted to buy a house, there is no possibility, I could buy a goat, but I have no desire .. wink
                    Quote: g1v2
                    The following frigates will be built in about 4 years.

                    If they are laid not in two in 4 years, but in 5-8 pieces annually, then it will be possible to talk about something seriously.
                    Quote: g1v2
                    WELL AND FINALLY THE OCEAN ZONE SHIP AND THE FIRST RANK SHIP IS NOT SYNONYMIC.

                    And I don’t say that. I spoke about the first rank ships TARKI, ARKi (which, in principle, can be considered the Leader destroyer), aircraft carriers, light destroyers (with a gas turbine SU) ... But then the question arises: where to get all the shipyards?
                    Quote: g1v2
                    And by the way, and destroyers and NPCs can be of the first and second rank.

                    I agree. But we have a conversation with you on the whole about arsenal ships, which are TARKs and ARKs with atomic and gas-turbine destroyers.
                    About the underwater fleet, too, is not all rosy.
                    1. g1v2
                      g1v2 29 January 2016 18: 10 New
                      0
                      To build 25 leaders and 50 frigates of 22350, we will need 25 years and throw all the means and forces into the fleet. And this is clearly not a priority for a continental power. request And the construction of such a fleet as a gun on the wall - if we are to build a great armada, then for specific purposes and for the war. We are building a fleet primarily for coastal defense and local wars. The fleet is expensive and you need to look for a middle ground between its power and the burden on the budget. We do not have vassals and 20 trillion dollars in debt to us only on the security of the territory will give. Do we need it?
                      According to the ships of the ocean zone, so far the forecasts are 12 frigates 22350 (1 is ready for delivery, 1 is waiting for the turbine and the start of testing, and 2 is under construction). The first leader will be the year 2027, including their number will be determined by finances. Well, 6 udk to replace the mistral. In principle, they promised to lay the first one this year, but it is doubtful to me that in such a short time the project could be prepared for laying. I hope to make a mistake. hi
                      1. NEXUS
                        NEXUS 29 January 2016 18: 23 New
                        +1
                        Quote: g1v2
                        To build 25 leaders and 50 frigates of 22350, we will need 25 years and throw all the means and forces into the fleet.

                        Do you consider this a lot for two fleets and a Mediterranean armada? I am not saying that all this should be built in a short time.

                        Quote: g1v2
                        And this is clearly not a priority for a continental power.

                        And you probably forgot about the spheres of influence. Remember the 5 Mediterranean armada of the times of the USSR. Then there were no NATO vessels in those waters. And as soon as our ships left, Iraq, Libya and so on began ... or do you think that the interests of the Russian Federation end with their own the boundaries?

                        Quote: g1v2
                        The fleet is expensive and you need to look for a middle ground between its power and the burden on the budget.

                        In order to withstand the load, we need shipyards, jobs (7–9 civil industry workers per defense industry), trade, and, let’s say, a sovereign economy that is not dependent on a barrel, the dollar and European banking fraud.
                        Quote: g1v2
                        The first leader will be the year 2027

                        I believe that if bureaucrats end up being foolish, then laying the lead Leader can happen earlier.
      4. Talgat
        Talgat 28 January 2016 19: 07 New
        +1
        Quote: Tatiana
        The same threat to the US Navy, Kazianis, calls the submarine fleet of Russia, which, in his words, "doubled its rates."

        If this is true, then for Russia we can only rejoice.
        It remains to wish the Russian Navy to continue to maintain its superiority over the US Navy.


        Rejoice yes - I support

        But of course, there can be no superiority - even the USSR - this moment of the "takeoff of the Eurasian Empire" - and even then it could not surpass the US + Western fleet

        We are talking about an "asymmetric confrontation" - these are atomarin submarines (globally) and the ability of the fleet and coastal aviation to resist a maritime power on a regional scale at their borders

        In other words, Amers cannot see an easy victory. and the Russian Federation is not Iraq or Libya-the aggressor is too tough. Submarines are also a deterrent like SNF
      5. Boa kaa
        Boa kaa 28 January 2016 20: 37 New
        +2
        Quote: Tatiana
        It remains to wish the Russian Navy to continue to maintain its superiority over the US Navy.

        Tatyana, you, as a woman, are forgiven ... "wishful thinking" for "real"!
    2. Uran
      Uran 28 January 2016 07: 38 New
      -1
      our cruise missiles from the Caspian Sea. made a rustle that gives the US Navy a mandrake!
      1. just exp
        just exp 28 January 2016 07: 55 New
        +6
        states can bring rustle to the Persian Gulf in the Caspian Sea? or do you think that we have only cruise missiles?
        1. edeligor
          edeligor 28 January 2016 08: 51 New
          +1
          Quote: just explo
          Do you think that we have only cruise missiles?

          If we consider the use of missile defense on ground targets then yes, if in the fleet then missile defense systems are not designed for such a range. There was a leak about the Tomahawks with a new guidance system, supposedly with the possibility of using dynamic targets. Count the range, the possibility of maneuver and the probability of defeat and agree that it is almost impossible.
          1. kote119
            kote119 28 January 2016 09: 23 New
            +2
            mattresses have a full range of cruise missiles, and extensive experience in the use of cr on ground targets
    3. Sober
      Sober 28 January 2016 07: 50 New
      +1
      Quote: pvv113
      This decision makes us feel proud of our fleet!

      For Russia!
    4. vodolaz
      vodolaz 28 January 2016 08: 46 New
      +6
      Americans are generally accustomed to fighting against a knowingly weaker opponent and the emergence of a force that can break them in response is frankly scary.
    5. APASUS
      APASUS 28 January 2016 10: 21 New
      +3
      Quote: pvv113
      The same threat to the US Navy, Kazianis, calls the submarine fleet of Russia, which, in his words, "doubled its rates."

      This decision makes us feel proud of our fleet!

      This circus is not played out for your ears and has nothing to do with our fleet!
      They do not create a submarine fleet in 2 years and not 5 years, these are decades of labor, the work of designers, testers, shipbuilders, and the anxiety became visible only now ???
      At stake is the adoption of the military budget for next year and the reduction in spending announced by Obama. Now Putin is already inflating the universal Evil, the second act of comedy is an increase in publications with all kinds of horror stories about our Army and Navy.
      As a result, the senator must understand that the United States is really threatened by the evil Putin and his myriad armored divisions.
      As the money is received, all ratings and analytical materials return to their advertising place - where weapons with the Made in USA stigma take the first place
    6. Scraptor
      Scraptor 28 January 2016 13: 47 New
      0
      Maybe they need it?

      and who else could pose any threat to them — white whales?
  2. Bongo
    Bongo 28 January 2016 07: 16 New
    14
    The same threat to the US Navy, Kazianis, calls the submarine fleet of Russia, which, in his words, "doubled its rates."

    The United States, of course, would like its fleet to be the only one in the oceans. But by and large, the report of The National Interest is another knockout of money from the US budget.
    1. veksha50
      veksha50 28 January 2016 09: 58 New
      0
      Quote: Bongo
      by and large, the report of The National Interest is another knockout of bucks from the US budget.



      Especially considering that they even considered the fleets of Sweden and Iran a possible threat to the Amer fleet ...
      So, stupid and arbitrary scattering of phrases, the purpose of which is one thing: knocking out money ...
    2. Anton Gavrilov
      Anton Gavrilov 28 January 2016 10: 20 New
      +2
      Complete crap. They are not afraid of us, from the word almost completely, just look at the number of forces in terms of quantity even.
  3. Red_Hamer
    Red_Hamer 28 January 2016 07: 17 New
    +6
    Give the bucks to the military budget (cut, etc.), gentlemen, the more the better.
    Which corporations, this Harry sits on a percentage?
    1. Tatyana
      Tatyana 28 January 2016 07: 47 New
      +2
      Red_Hamer
      Which corporations, this Harry sits on a percentage?
      The fact that this Harry is sitting on the "percentage of sales" is, for sure, exactly so! There in the United States, the entire system of the armed forces is like that.
  4. 24rus
    24rus 28 January 2016 07: 17 New
    +1
    They are now afraid of Sweden
  5. Barakuda
    Barakuda 28 January 2016 07: 18 New
    +9
    The United States itself poses the greatest threat to the United States, or rather its financial and political rabble. fool
    1. SveTok
      SveTok 28 January 2016 08: 00 New
      0
      The Americans have something to regret, you cannot return the past and you won’t help the tears of the crying Marines.
  6. Bongo
    Bongo 28 January 2016 07: 18 New
    10
    Quote: pvv113
    This decision makes us feel proud of our fleet!

    Yes, especially for the surface component of the Pacific Fleet crying
  7. Great-grandfather of Zeus
    Great-grandfather of Zeus 28 January 2016 07: 18 New
    +1
    With wolves live, have a loaded gun under your arm.
  8. Hubun
    Hubun 28 January 2016 07: 26 New
    0
    It's only the beginning. Provoked yourself, now get ready
  9. Brutal
    Brutal 28 January 2016 07: 26 New
    +2
    Strange! And, what, before our submarine fleet was not on this "list" ?!
  10. Aaron Zawi
    Aaron Zawi 28 January 2016 07: 30 New
    13
    What is the news here? APF RF can destroy any state and not one. In principle, like the US APF., The Chinese fleet is being pulled by power. India set itself the same task. There is no need to be an expert to acknowledge this fact.
    1. Bongo
      Bongo 28 January 2016 07: 33 New
      +8
      Quote: Aron Zaavi
      What is the news here? APF RF can not destroy any state and not one. In principle, like the US APF., The Chinese fleet is being pulled by power. India set itself the same task. There is no need to be an expert to acknowledge this fact.

      The statements of such "experts" are very pleasant for "Urya-patriots", but for some reason no one compares the lost Soviet fleet with the current Russian one.
      1. Ami du peuple
        Ami du peuple 28 January 2016 08: 26 New
        +4
        Quote: Bongo
        The statements of such "experts" are very pleasant for "Urya-patriots", but for some reason no one compares the lost Soviet fleet with the current Russian one.

        Why compare disparate values? Russia's geopolitical interests do not extend to the whole world, in contrast to the former interests of the Soviet Union. And the economies of the USSR and the Russian Federation are incomparable, unfortunately. Accordingly, the current Navy has a different composition and purpose.
        1. Bongo
          Bongo 28 January 2016 08: 31 New
          +3
          Quote: Ami du peuple
          Why compare disparate values? Russia's geopolitical interests do not extend to the whole world, in contrast to the former interests of the Soviet Union.

          Not distributed due to lack of features.
          Quote: Ami du peuple
          And the economies of the USSR and the Russian Federation are incomparable, unfortunately.

          We would have enough money for building a fleet (like many other things). But probably our country needs "image projects" more ...
          Quote: Ami du peuple
          Accordingly, the current Navy has a different composition and purpose.

          Here I am talking about too. The current composition and technical condition of the fleet do not allow solving global problems in the oceans.
      2. oblako
        oblako 28 January 2016 08: 30 New
        +5
        The more equal the forces in the fleet, in the air, on the ground, the higher contracting parties are more negotiable, mutually polite, and inclined to take into account the interests of partners. The main thing is not to be weak and keep the gunpowder dry ...)))
  11. Masya masya
    Masya masya 28 January 2016 07: 32 New
    +5
    If there is no threat, there is no denyu ...
  12. Guevara
    Guevara 28 January 2016 07: 33 New
    +1
    It’s good that they are afraid, but their fleet also poses a threat to us in the event of a conflict, we must destroy it first with its large number of cruise and ballistic missiles on ships and submarines.
  13. Neophyte
    Neophyte 28 January 2016 07: 35 New
    +3
    "Train your muscle and body with benefit, for military affairs!" (Agitation of the times of the SA).
    1. Thunderbolt
      Thunderbolt 28 January 2016 08: 28 New
      +3
      Quote: Neophyte
      Agitation from the time of SA
      This is Vladimir Vladimirovich said Mayakovsky.
  14. asiat_61
    asiat_61 28 January 2016 07: 36 New
    0
    And you file a lawsuit against Russia, the Gaga or the Hague, as you like.
  15. SklochPensioner
    SklochPensioner 28 January 2016 07: 36 New
    0
    Russia doubles, China triples, Sweden pulls up ...
    GIVE MONEY and more! repeat
  16. Uncle lee
    Uncle lee 28 January 2016 07: 39 New
    11
    I tell you, America!
    The breakaway part of the Earth.
    Fear the seas of unbelief
    Steel ships launch!

    "Country of villains" S.A. Yesenin
  17. naGua
    naGua 28 January 2016 07: 42 New
    +2
    This is such a veiled whimper and beging for money from the budget. That's all. Or this Kazianis is a military expert like me, the Chinese emperor Qin Shihuangdi smile
  18. Wolka
    Wolka 28 January 2016 07: 48 New
    +1
    however, the debt for Kursk requires a return ...
    1. kote119
      kote119 28 January 2016 08: 18 New
      +1
      what kind of debt for Kursk are you talking about? Do not watch different documentaries at night.
      1. alexej123
        alexej123 28 January 2016 09: 18 New
        +1
        I meant the nuclear submarine "Kursk". The point of view is clear. The main argument FOR - why did they saw off the first compartment under water, and then forcefully iron it with bombs?
        1. lis-ik
          lis-ik 28 January 2016 13: 49 New
          0
          There were a number of civilian specialists in the first lists of those killed on the Kursk; for short-term work in the defense design bureau, I know that civilian specialists are present at a military facility in two cases: 1. During routine maintenance, specialists from the manufacturer's or design bureau require intervention. 2. When testing experimental weapon systems or equipment. Because the explosion occurred in the 1st compartment, I assume that the torpedoes are to blame, i.e. nakosyacheli themselves. And you really don't need to watch a Western documentary, the versions are interesting, but unlikely.
          1. alexej123
            alexej123 29 January 2016 10: 25 New
            0
            I do not claim that the submarine of the NATO countries is to blame.
        2. The comment was deleted.
        3. kote119
          kote119 28 January 2016 16: 31 New
          +1
          they sawed it off because it interfered with the operation of lifting the ship due to severe destruction, but they bombed it so as not to leave artifacts to foreign intelligence.
  19. poacher
    poacher 28 January 2016 07: 48 New
    +1
    these Yankees are afraid of everyone, they seem to live behind a puddle, neither Korea, nor Vietnam, nor Iraq, nor Syria, nor Iran, nor Afghanistan are nearby, nor an army or a decent fleet, but they are afraid of everyone. They are already reaching Europe.
  20. Jan2016
    Jan2016 28 January 2016 08: 22 New
    0
    And why did NI suddenly right now discover a DANGEROUS Russian submarine fleet?
  21. hartlend
    hartlend 28 January 2016 08: 51 New
    +1
    What new did the notorious American expert say? The Russian submarine fleet was among the main threats before, this is natural, and for this it was created. Now the fleet has been updated, what has changed? The expert works off his bread, masloiz the same topic, and we are discussing here.
  22. bad
    bad 28 January 2016 08: 53 New
    +1
    Analyzing the Swedish submarine fleet, an NI expert writes that sometimes even cheaper submarines (cheaper compared to the US) "are capable of imposing vanity."
    .. our sailors are not honored to "induce a fuss" ... but "to induce a fuss" with a passing headache from "partners" is a custom .. laughing
  23. Million
    Million 28 January 2016 09: 19 New
    0
    Afraid, then respected!
  24. Mikhail Krapivin
    Mikhail Krapivin 28 January 2016 09: 22 New
    0
    And here is a confirmation of what the comrades were talking about here yesterday. Slowly, a hysteria begins on the topic "give money, give money." The closer we get to the elections and the adoption of the budget, the stronger and more terrible our armed forces will be portrayed, and the US army will become more defenseless and worse equipped. Have already passed.
  25. Gormenghast
    Gormenghast 28 January 2016 10: 10 New
    0
    Statement of the obvious. Just why "threat"? Who is threatening whom? Maybe a plan."Barbarossa" there is?

    Or is it a threat to expansionist, aggressive democratization plans? Then yes. laughing
  26. Ros 56
    Ros 56 28 January 2016 10: 24 New
    0
    The good news is, what are the stripes that our VKS and Strategic Rocket Forces do not like? Here are stupid, how many times they have been told, we have a triad. In which case we will hit both from land and from the air, well, and from the ocean naturally. You don’t care where it flies from, it will still be very scary.
  27. Sergey Sitnikov
    Sergey Sitnikov 28 January 2016 10: 39 New
    0
    All statements by analysts from the warriors))) are nothing more than grounds for increasing funding for promising means of "answering" the "enemy"
  28. el coyote
    el coyote 28 January 2016 11: 30 New
    0
    The same threat to the US Navy, Kazianis, calls the submarine fleet of Russia, which, in his words, "doubled its rates."


    How can we double something with the "torn to pieces" economy ?! wassat
  29. triglav
    triglav 28 January 2016 12: 21 New
    +1
    And we need to double. The enemy does not sleep. Although ... I would have divided the opinion of this "expert" in half. Then the picture will be clearer. But the fact that our Armed Forces are developing is for sure! And it is right.