Military Review

US Navy ship composition on 01.01.2016 (statistics)

77



This publication is the first (not counting the “premature” for the Russian Navy and the PLA Navy) of the conceived project of comparing the world’s navies to determine the real place of the Russian Federation in the 10 of leading maritime powers - a comparison without the emotional, in figures, divided into two stages. At the first stage, it is supposed to compare the quantitative, “weight and size”, and age characteristics, as well as the capabilities of military shipbuilding, respectively, in terms of total number, total and average total displacement (because the standard and normal values ​​are quite rare), average service life 01.01.2016 and average construction time). It’s too early to talk about the second stage.



The presented statistical study takes into account everything that is called capital ships - warships of the main classes, plus amphibious and so-called littoral ships (which the author is inclined to consider as corvettes), i.e., that component of the Navy that can project power to remote regions of the world. At the same time, the US Navy is probably the only military fleet on a planet in which almost all the ship’s composition falls under this definition, with the possible exception of minesweepers such as the Avenger.

Ships under construction (not transferred to the fleet before 01.01.2016) are included in the source data. reference - they are not taken into account neither in the total number of the ship personnel, nor in the total displacement. Ship names are given in Russian transcription, in most cases checked for compliance with the traditional spellings of geographical names, names and surnames of people in whose honor the nomination was made.

10 statistical observations:

1) colossal total displacement (about three million tons) - in four times greater than that of the closest competitors (the Russian Navy and the PLA Navy - 1 link);

2) about 30% total displacement falls on aircraft carriers, about half - on aircraft carriers, UDC and DVKD (which in the first case constitute 5%in the second - about 15% ship composition);

3) large average displacement (15 500 t) corresponding to heavy cruiser (in the Russian Navy - the destroyer, in the PLA Navy - in a frigate), which makes it possible to speak of the US Navy as the “fleet of large ships”;

4) a fairly modest share of new ships (which entered service during the last 10 years) - 21,5-23,5% (for the Russian Navy - about 10-12,5%2 link), which, most likely, is close to the "standard" of the share of new equipment (with the exception of some types of weapons) in any fleet that is steadily developing and functioning for a long time;

5) is not too strong (not "forever") separation from the Russian Navy by the average age of the ship (19 против 25 years), which testifies to both the difficulties of its more frequent renovation and the well-developed ship repair, capable of maintaining a large number of far from new ships in proper technical condition;

6) minimum gap (in fact - parity) with the Russian Navy on the average age of multi-purpose submarines, including the SSGN / APCR (22,3 против 22,9 year - in the tables in the explicit form of these numbers are not), with "only" two-fold (2,2) superiority in numbers (57 против 26) - provided that our program of restoring the nuclear submarine fleet will be fully implemented;

7) significant (almost double) separation from the Russian Navy by the average age of the destroyer class ships (including BOD) - the workhorse of the ocean fleet (14,3 против 26,2 years) with an overwhelming (almost sixfold) numerical superiority (62 против 11);

8) the challenging dates for the construction of "undersized" littoral ships (besides - increasing from the head to the serial, and not vice versa), exceeding those for cruisers, destroyers and submarines;

9) envy and respect for the average construction time of multi-purpose submarines and destroyers (3,65 и 2,77 year, respectively) - a landmark to strive for;

10) the USSR’s lagging behind the United States in the average duration of the construction of warships of the main classes (including SSBNs / SSBNs) was only three months with a quarter (3,91 против 3,64 years or 6,9%) - potential that needs to be restored at least in the medium term.

Initial data: in full view (5720 pix. Vertically) - on click.

Author:
Originator:
http://navy-korabel.livejournal.com/127082.html
77 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. mine
    mine April 2 2016 00: 25
    -42%
    Monsieur Shishkin’s conclusions - illiterate crap not related to reality
    1. cdrt
      cdrt April 2 2016 01: 21
      +21
      and what is illiterate in accurate data collection?
      1. mine
        mine April 2 2016 01: 33
        -20%
        Quote: cdrt
        and what is illiterate in accurate data collection?

        digits - yes neatly folded

        and here are the conclusions - sucking a dirty finger
        1. Demontek
          Demontek April 2 2016 05: 53
          +19
          In my opinion, you have a very pronounced prejudice towards the author. I don’t know why you didn’t like him so much, but what specific conclusions, personally, do you not like here? In this article, there are no conclusions, it’s all statistics and a comparison of the average data.
          1. mine
            mine April 2 2016 14: 23
            -10%
            Quote: DemonTek
            In my opinion, you have a very pronounced prejudice towards the author. I don’t know why you didn’t like him so much, but what specific conclusions, personally, do you not like here?

            in his LJ afftor openly smacks nonsense and illiterately lies, while desperately trying to "unwind"
            those. its extinction is not a high-quality work, but hack-work on "people gobble up"

            specifically I examined these conclusions in one of LJ, now there is no time to look
            1. cdrt
              cdrt April 3 2016 01: 11
              +2
              Quote: mina
              in his LJ afftor openly smacks nonsense and illiterately lies, while desperately trying to "unwind"
              those. its extinction is not a high-quality work, but hack-work on "people gobble up"


              SW mina, you are known for their uncompromisingness on all forums and sites around the military wink
              He can carry any nonsense - a free country. But the facts then picked up well. Why is the article valuable?
              Conclusions - hmm ... well, in my opinion, not the most useful in this article
      2. Santa Fe
        Santa Fe April 2 2016 08: 51
        +4
        Quote: cdrt
        and what is illiterate in accurate data collection?

        You call this "Neat" ??

        Even with a naked eye in the table - a lot of errors

        1. Sea Wolfe-class submarine disappeared (there are three of them - Sivulf, Connecticut and, absent, Jimmy Carter SSN-23). This is the latest representative of SeaWolves (built in 2004) and the most interesting of them. Nuclear-powered icebreaker for special operations - installation of deep-sea equipment, wiretapping of submarine cables, collection of wreckage of ships and missiles at marine ranges + with full preservation of the combat potential of SiWulf.

        2. The 63rd Burke-class destroyer (John Finn DDG-113) was launched a year ago. This is not reflected in the table.



        3. The old UDCs are scrupulously listed, but the technique of the Shipping Command is not reflected in any way (dozens of ships)

        For example - the military floating base-helicopter carrier "Puller" (2015). By its purpose, it is a typical amphibious assault ship; by its characteristics and suitability to the tasks it performs, it will "plug in the belt" any Mistral. Still, 74 thousand tons of displacement means something.



        Or a combination of high-speed ro-ro + platform with landing boats "Monford Point" (2013)

        And finally, the deliberately absurd conclusion:
        not too strong (not "forever") separation from the Russian Navy by the average age of the ship composition (19 versus 25 years)

        90% of the warships of the ocean zone, the "combat core" of the fleet - are guaranteed to be over 25 years old. The flagship of the Black Sea Fleet, the cruiser Moskva, was laid down in 1978, in service since 1983. The aircraft carrier Kuznetsov was built from 1982 to 1991.

        Then, as the basis of the US Navy, the bulk of the Aegis destroyers and 13 multipurpose nuclear submarines were built in the new century. Apart from dozens of other large units of the remaining classes (all eleven amphibious San Antonio, UDC America, three nuclear aircraft carriers (Reagan, Bush, Ford), six frigates LCS) and so on. - were built in the new century

        here is such a "not too strong gap"
        1. saturn.mmm
          saturn.mmm April 2 2016 10: 15
          0
          Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
          Sea Wolfe-class submarine disappeared

          The article is called Shipboard, how can ships be considered as part of a ship that has not yet been built?
          1. Santa Fe
            Santa Fe April 2 2016 10: 34
            +1
            Quote: saturn.mmm
            The article is called Shipboard, how can ships be considered as part of a ship that has not yet been built?

            Carter was commissioned 12 years ago
            1. saturn.mmm
              saturn.mmm April 2 2016 16: 49
              +3
              Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
              Carter was commissioned 12 years ago

              Yes, I'm not talking about Carter, but about Ford, Kenedy, about three Virginias, Zumwalt unfinished, this is more a question for the author who included them in the list, you noticed about the absent Seawolf and the fact that the list is unfinished the ships did not notice.
              1. saturn.mmm
                saturn.mmm April 2 2016 19: 23
                +1
                Author:
                Ships under construction (not handed over to the fleet until 01.01.2016/XNUMX/XNUMX) are included in the initial data for reference - they are not taken into account either in the total number of ship composition, or in the total displacement.

                Somehow it flew past me, I apologize.
        2. Kronos07
          Kronos07 April 3 2016 17: 27
          0
          The Navy's first Mobile Landing Platform (MLP), USNS Montford Point demonstrates the capability to perform skin-to-skin operations, vehicle transfer, and to launch and recover Landing Craft Air Cushion (LCAC) while attached to the USNS Bob Hope
    2. Ruslan
      Ruslan April 2 2016 02: 08
      +9
      yeah, not weak. over the 30 years of my life they have lowered 9 aircraft carriers. Descent 3 I remember from our news. and I didn’t count the rest of the ships. we would like that. envy:)
      1. dyksi
        dyksi April 2 2016 11: 38
        +3
        I agree, it’s enviable, we have ships of the far sea zone, this is the Soviet legacy and they can be counted on fingers, we build only missile boats. There is no need to talk about comparing salvos of ships, but with the word aircraft carrier and destroyer, the mood is completely lost, because they can’t even be seen beyond the horizon.
        1. Ruslan
          Ruslan April 2 2016 12: 28
          +3
          oh, don't even talk about destroyers. I figured they were damn all done at my 30 :( sadness, yell fell! FIG with them, with aircraft carriers, at least 40 destroyers like burke, and 10 landing ships. That would be okay. ehhh ...
        2. KaPToC
          KaPToC April 2 2016 18: 28
          0
          Excuse me, volleys WHAT are you comparing?
    3. skiff-xnumx
      skiff-xnumx April 2 2016 11: 32
      0
      Okay, conclusions. Correct conclusions are difficult to draw on inaccurate information. Therefore, the question is to the author. Why did he include units in reserve. The example of Ticonderoga 11 buildings last year was sent to conservation and it’s not their fate to leave it since The mechanisms are worn out and repairs are not planned.
    4. Wiruz
      Wiruz April 2 2016 13: 06
      0
      Monsieur Shishkin’s conclusions - illiterate crap not related to reality

      Totally agree!
      As the saying goes: there is a lie, there is a lie, but there are statistics bully
    5. Kenneth
      Kenneth April 2 2016 14: 05
      +1
      Present your findings and try to compare.
      1. mine
        mine April 2 2016 14: 26
        -2
        Quote: Kenneth
        present your conclusions and try to compare.

        did analysis in one of LJ
        now too lazy to look

        and yet - I expressed my expert opinion about this illiterate (in terms of conclusions) opus
      2. KaPToC
        KaPToC April 2 2016 18: 37
        0
        The conclusions are simple, the Americans have honed the production of several projects: airliners, ticonderogs, aircraft carriers and two nuclear submarine projects (EMNIP). They build the ships of these projects quickly, but they cannot seriously change the project. They build the same corvettes and frigates no faster than us. The Americans became hostages of their own shipbuilding program.
    6. The comment was deleted.
    7. venik
      venik April 3 2016 12: 09
      +4
      Sorry sir!
      In a statistical review (and this is exactly how this article should be qualified!) There are no conclusions at all!
      There is an initial (and fairly detailed) analysis of statistical data! Completed by the way very competently !! Anyone familiar with the procedure for processing statistical data will confirm.
      And we can draw conclusions all together (for which, in particular, this peculiar forum exists)
  2. Dam
    Dam April 2 2016 00: 57
    +1
    What did the author want to say? What lags behind is the axiom and the point of proving its statistics. Our confrontation with America is the battle of an elephant and a whale. We are stronger on land, in the sea they are. And only SNF practically makes sense.
  3. gallville
    gallville April 2 2016 01: 06
    +13
    The man tried, collected the data together. Deserved plus article.
  4. serg2108
    serg2108 April 2 2016 01: 31
    +10
    dear gentlemen, respect the work of those who write articles for you, and statistics are a good thing and the author needs for his work, plus definitely!
    1. Boa kaa
      Boa kaa April 2 2016 08: 41
      +9
      Quote: serg2108
      respect the work of those who write articles for you, and statistics are a good and necessary thing

      1. Correct words. This is a tremendous work worthy of respect.
      2. Statistics is the bread of analysis. This is for those who are friends with the head and are able to draw independent conclusions from the material presented.
      Everything is great ...
      What does not suit. The ship is an offshore platform for wearable weapons. If this is not taken into account, then a false sense of doom can arise. If you look at the "loads" (the number of anti-ship missiles per ton of weight), with the exception of the latest samples (we are now modernizing the same "Nakhimov" for 200 units), then under the USSR we still had a chance. And, it should be noted, not bad.
      Now we need to revive this approach. Then it will not be so dreary to look at the digital figure of Amsk supremacy.
      And the last. And what about our RTOs with "Calibers" (pictured).
      The bug is small, but it stinks! And the arm is long, and the displacement is not oceanic. But if 8 anti-ship missiles are "screwed up", then AVU will not seem a little!
      Can nevertheless consider, as was customary in * decent * houses, BATTLE POTENTIALS of ships, forces and sides !? (expressed in * weights *, * conventional units * of the combat power of the weapon system)
      There is such a technique. And it gives a clearer, real picture of the combat capabilities of the forces of the parties.
      Yours faithfully, hi
      1. Santa Fe
        Santa Fe April 2 2016 10: 31
        0
        Quote: Boa constrictor KAA
        If you look at the "load" (the number of anti-ship missiles per ton of weight)

        What a strange parameter
        why pcr? ... and not Zur? Tomahawks? or the number, type and purpose of the radar? their radiated power?
        Quote: Boa constrictor KAA
        we are now modernizing the same "Nakhimov" under 200 units of r-t

        26 thousand tons - as 2,5 Amer destroyer
        Quote: Boa constrictor KAA
        And what about our RTOs with "Calibers" (pictured).

        No way. they mean nothing
        The entire salvo of the Caspian flotilla = half the salvo of the Burke destroyer.

        In reality, these eight CRs can be launched from an airplane, even higher efficiency. But then what to show on TV?
        Quote: Boa constrictor KAA
        But if 8 anti-ship missiles are "screwed up", then AVU will not seem a little!

        Where did you find the AVU in the Caspian Sea
        1. Boa kaa
          Boa kaa April 2 2016 16: 12
          +6
          Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
          What a strange parameter

          Parameter - units of weapons per ton of displacement. Will this suit you?
          Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
          26 thousand tons - as 2,5 Amer destroyer

          There is nothing to be done: the Soviet shipbuilding industry gave birth to this! But he is with the nuclear power plant! And not the kerosene that you need to refuel.
          Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
          they (mrk) mean nothing. Where did you find the AVU in the Caspian Sea

          Oleg, you're an intelligent person, why are you so finely substituted !?
          1. Back in Soviet times, there was an experience of carrying BS in the Mediterranean by our RTOs. History repeats itself: February - "Green Dol", March - "Serpukhov" became part of the OS in the Mediterranean.
          Yes, they are in Tartus. Yes, autonomy and seaworthiness are not enough. But this is a real threat to NATO ships.
          2. About AVU in the Mediterranean I think it’s not worth crushing water.
          3. Project 21631 has 1-108 tons of displacement per 109 anti-ship missile, which is comparable to the "Burk".
          4. Upgraded 11442M, this is 10 PU 3S-14 in each with 8 cells. Yes, and "ruzhzho" will be different: GZPKR "Zircon". If it is true that our craftsmen are going to shove 1 tactical "Caliber" (3M-3) into 54 egg, then there is no doubt that the Soviet "atomic battleship" will still serve Russia.
          So what, in fact, is the question !?
          Yes, lagging behind. Yes, we are few. But we have weapons, and they are quite modern, no worse than Amsk, and GZO will probably be better.
          So, "Do not hang your nose, Midshipmen! Is life bad. Or is it good. Sail and soul are one. Sail and soul are one, Fate and Motherland are one!"
          And from the above statistics ... mental stability is not added.
          IMHO.
          1. Santa Fe
            Santa Fe April 2 2016 19: 48
            -5
            Quote: Boa constrictor KAA
            Parameter - units of weapons per ton of displacement. Will this suit you?

            No, of course, what stupidity

            Missiles are different, detection tools and SLAs are even more important
            Back in Soviet times, there was an experience of carrying BS in Mediterranean by our RTOs. History repeats itself: February - "Green Dol", March - "Serpukhov" became part of the OS in the Mediterranean.

            Who will issue the CC? Ah, the plane
            So what prevents it from launching anti-ship missiles from the same aircraft. Why for this a slow-moving defenseless vessel with 52 crew
            1. KaPToC
              KaPToC April 2 2016 20: 02
              0
              For instance? Ships fire in one gulp, planes take off in pairs from an aircraft carrier, we are not talking about any massive attack.
            2. Boa kaa
              Boa kaa April 2 2016 22: 31
              +7
              Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
              what nonsense. Missiles are different, detection tools and SLAs are even more important

              1. Weapons food on 1 W - not my invented, used in Soviet times, the parameter used.
              2. Missiles are different. - Right! But NK drown RCC! (There are exceptions: SAM, PLUR and other things with SBP).
              3. Detection tools are very important. Who argues. But there is such a thing as VZOI + GOS of the product, which in the HHRC solves the issue of ignorance of the Goal.
              4. LMS. It is important of course. But you can shoot at external sources of information according to the principle "I shot it - I forgot!"
              Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
              Who will issue the CC? Ah, the plane
              And not only. KNS, BRTs, space can help, in Mediterranean even "Satchel"
              Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
              So what prevents it from launching anti-ship missiles from the same aircraft. Why for this a slow-moving defenseless vessel

              Of course, the plane can also "launch", who argues.
              But watch the enemy for days at a time - well, if only an airship! But for now, I’m sorry, they are not known.
              And even better, of course, a combat space station with exo-weapons. But she is not there either. That’s why it’s necessary to drag RTOs to the Mediterranean. And what to do: there is no other yet.
              And then, if aviation could solve everything, ships would not be built.
              Yours faithfully, hi
              1. Operator
                Operator April 2 2016 22: 54
                +2
                Everything is simpler - the agreement and the INF Treaty prohibits the deployment of ballistic and cruise missiles with a flight range from 500 to 5500 km on ground and air carriers.

                And on marine carriers - as many as you want.
                1. cdrt
                  cdrt April 3 2016 01: 18
                  +3
                  Quote: Operator
                  Everything is simpler - the agreement and the INF Treaty prohibits the deployment of ballistic and cruise missiles with a flight range from 500 to 5500 km on ground and air carriers.


                  From this is the key. I do not remember, however, that there is a ban on aerial anti-ship missiles, but ground-based ones are definitely prohibited. Actually Buyany-M, and there is a bypass of these prohibitions in the first place
              2. Santa Fe
                Santa Fe April 2 2016 23: 06
                -3
                Quote: Boa constrictor KAA
                1. Weapons food on 1 W - not my invented, used in Soviet times, the parameter used.

                In the 21 century, when comparing ships of different states, built on different concepts
                this parameter loses its meaning.

                A TPK with 1-th 9М96Е or 4-х 9М100 is installed in one cell of Redoubt. So what?
                Quote: Boa constrictor KAA
                Detection tools are very important. Who argues. But there is such a thing as VZOI + GOS of the product, which in the HHRC solves the issue of ignorance of the Goal.

                Destroyers and frigates are built not only (and not so much!) For strike missions
                Nowadays, the only reason for the existence of all Berks, Kolkata and 22350 is to provide air defense / missile defense for naval formations and military operations

                For sea battles there is nothing more effective than submarines and aircraft. NK there in the role of fighting off and covering transports, thanks to its air defense systems

                RTOs have nothing to do with it. They cannot cover themselves.
                Quote: Boa constrictor KAA
                But watch the enemy for days on end.

                there is a scout - an RTR plane. or with radar side view. based on a civil airliner. The Yankees have an unmanned Triton - 30 hours in the air, 4 million square meters. kilometers per day

                If necessary, an attack group will fly out of Hmeimim. Over the target will be in a couple of minutes
                1. KaPToC
                  KaPToC April 2 2016 23: 18
                  +3
                  22350 carries sixteen supersonic anti-ship missiles, which is sixteen more than ANY American ship.
                2. Boa kaa
                  Boa kaa April 3 2016 08: 39
                  +4
                  Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                  If required

                  Oleg, you are looking for a justification for your point of view, which I undoubtedly respect.
                  But there is a criterion: cost / effectiveness, according to which NK for solving the tasks listed by you is much more effective than an aircraft. Especially with a long (days, or even weeks) solution. Apparently therefore, the Yankees 53 Burke. With NK DMZ, you know, it’s not a lot.
                  But we cannot leave the threat without any response. Therefore, as much as we can, we respond by designating our presence in a strategically important area.
                  In WWII, soldiers with anti-tank guns stood against German tanks because there were no other vehicles.
                  Here is a similar situation: our RTO is the same fighter with a bunch of grenades in the first line trench. If there was RKR, they would send him ...
                  1. Santa Fe
                    Santa Fe April 3 2016 09: 31
                    0
                    Quote: Boa constrictor KAA
                    Apparently therefore, the Yankees 53 Burke.

                    Burke is primarily an air defense / missile defense ship

                    for nothing else he is needed
                    Quote: Boa constrictor KAA
                    But we cannot leave the threat without any response.

                    What can the surface ships of the 6 Fleet threaten
                    unless on TV
                    Quote: Boa constrictor KAA
                    indicating your presence in a strategically important area.

                    for this there is a group a / b Hmeimim
                    Quote: Boa constrictor KAA
                    our MRK is the same fighter with a bunch of grenades in the first line trench

                    Who is the war with?)))
                    1. Boa kaa
                      Boa kaa April 3 2016 15: 54
                      +3
                      Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                      What can the surface ships of the 6 fleet threaten except on TV

                      Oh my friend, you are a pacifist! Maybe on AVU they have birds of the world, and not combat aircraft? Therefore, to deny the potential threat posed by the 6 fleet is unreasonable, at least.
                      Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                      Who is the war with?)

                      Thank God there is no hot phase yet. But the lessons of the 41 year would not hurt us to learn. There is a potential threat - there must be a response so that evil thoughts do not wander into cowboy's heads.
                      By the way, our military-political leadership believes that there is an escalation of Mr. tension, and we have entered the initial phase of a new Cold War.
        2. KaPToC
          KaPToC April 2 2016 18: 49
          +1
          Because in the hypothetical squadron battle of our fleets, the RCC will play a decisive role.
          Moreover, it is necessary to compare not only a quantitative salvo, but also the combat range, the power of the warhead, and the speed of missiles.

          Clarification, our RTOs carry anti-ship missiles (including), the Burke destroyer salvo that you mention is NOT anti-ship missiles and does not participate in the battle of the fleets. This, incidentally, applies to cruisers and multipurpose nuclear submarines.
          1. cdrt
            cdrt April 3 2016 01: 19
            +1
            Quote: KaPToC
            Because in the hypothetical squadron battle of our fleets, the RCC will play a decisive role.


            Hmm ... why not naval aviation (for example, aircraft carrier), which is already launching anti-ship missiles.
            Which, in comparison with shipboard anti-ship missiles, gives a completely two or more times larger radius
            1. KaPToC
              KaPToC April 3 2016 02: 07
              +2
              Quote: cdrt
              Hmm ... why not naval aviation (for example, aircraft carrier), which is already launching anti-ship missiles.
              Which, in comparison with shipboard anti-ship missiles, gives a completely two or more times larger radius

              And naval aviation and underwater missile carriers, these are all carriers, weapons are a cruise missile.
              Purely hypothetically, the United States has 12 aircraft carriers, one third in maintenance and repair, one in the Pacific Ocean, one in the Indian Ocean and one in the Atlantic; the United States can put five aircraft carriers against us.
              Carriers will operate at the limit of range, planes take off in pairs with a significant interval, because catapults, so the Americans will attack our fleet in groups of ten planes, is equal to twenty anti-ship missiles, aren't you find enough?
              The United States has no other "long arm".
      2. mine
        mine April 2 2016 14: 31
        +1
        Quote: BoA KAA

        Can nevertheless consider, as was customary in * decent * houses, BATTLE POTENTIALS of ships, forces and sides !? (expressed in * weights *, * conventional units * of the combat power of the weapon system)
        There is such a technique. And it gives a clearer, real picture of the combat capabilities of the forces of the parties.

        But here you are absolutely right ... only Monsieur Shishkin is really not interested in the truth, he is focused on "the next Fleet of the High Seas" and categorically ignores any objective tools for considering issues
      3. Andrey NM
        Andrey NM April 2 2016 18: 47
        +3
        I drew attention to the age of SSBNs. In this direction, "star-struck" will have to strain decently. The plate is good, even with inaccuracies.
        We had an illustrative example from the 80s. One of our cadets collected information from "Jain", "Foreign Military Review", etc., made signs, pasted clippings on the forces of the fleets, etc. I don't know where he got "Jane", then he had, let's say, limited circulation. "Competent comrades" confiscated his work and classified him, explaining that the scattered information is not as important as the information collected and analyzed. By the way, his works were not in vain and were used during the educational process.
        1. kote119
          kote119 April 2 2016 23: 37
          +1
          at one time, when he was studying at VVMUPP, there was a bookstore nearby, there was a reference book on fleets there, a Jane one, but it was like a spaceship, and I really wanted to have one ...
          1. Andrey NM
            Andrey NM April 4 2016 06: 22
            +1
            Quote: kote119
            at one time, when he was studying at VVMUPP, there was a bookstore nearby, there was a reference book on fleets there, a Jane one, but it was like a spaceship, and I really wanted to have one ...


            And where is there on the corner? Is that on the "boot" on the right? In the 80s there was a grocery store .... :)
  5. 89067359490
    89067359490 April 2 2016 02: 39
    +2
    Plus, the author of the article for the neatly collected statistics. However, for some reason, someone did not like the article why not write your own.
    1. mine
      mine April 2 2016 04: 17
      -14%
      Quote: 89067359490
      Those who somehow did not like the article why not write your own.

      written
      lot
      including there is on this site
      and this is not illiterate nonsense Monsieur Shishkin
      1. Good cat
        Good cat April 2 2016 07: 29
        +3
        If you can link to your articles.
        1. mine
          mine April 2 2016 08: 42
          0
          Quote: Good cat
          If you can link to your articles.

          http://topwar.ru/75895-.html
          http://topwar.ru/56393-podvodnye-kamni-severodvinska-istoriya-s-nedovooruzheniem
          -apl-tretego-pokoleniya-ne-dolzhna-povtoritsya.html
          http://topwar.ru/53304-techestvennoe-torpednoe-oruzhie-na-mirovom-rynke.html
          http://topwar.ru/91709-my-stoim-na-poroge-ocherednoy-cusimy.html
          for the first time, I think that's enough wink
          further - "google will help"
          1. Riv
            Riv April 2 2016 15: 04
            +2
            Pinned up, however ... :)

            We are building a diesel mini-submarine, arming with four or six fairly powerful torpedoes. Management is fully automatic. The memory of the boat’s computer contains the signatures of the noise of the ships of the US Navy, NATO countries, as well as large civilian vessels. We drop the boat from the carrier cargo ship in the Persian Gulf (or in the Mexican, if imagination comes) and she gets up on combat duty.

            At hour X ... no X sounds dumb, let it be hour Y, the boat starts to work: it subsequently drowns several ships and ships that it recognizes as enemy ships. After the hunt begins, she begins to sink and anti-submarine ships. She does not need to hide, she is without a crew and is not afraid to be sunk. Having shot torpedoes, it sinks, or goes to ram. Near the coast, anti-submarine helicopters can be an effective weapon against such boats, but in the open sea the helicopter carrier risks running into a torpedo (such submarines are an order of magnitude cheaper than a corvette and can be put on dozens of them on duty).

            Moral: tonnage does NOT mean ANYTHING.
  6. Operator
    Operator April 2 2016 08: 43
    0
    The author carefully collected objective data, an absolute plus for him.
    Those who wish can draw their own conclusions.
    For example, that the separation of the United States from Russia in the underwater component of the fleet (strike, armed with ballistic and cruise missiles) is much smaller than in the surface (defensive, air defense / anti-aircraft). And there is good dynamics in building up this component in Russia.
  7. Camel
    Camel April 2 2016 09: 19
    +4
    Yeah, statistics ... Where are we going to bury them all?
    1. UREC
      UREC April 2 2016 10: 45
      +1
      In the sea of ​​course! Where is isho!
  8. Seasoned22
    Seasoned22 April 2 2016 09: 36
    0
    Respect article. Statistics know everything. Besides how many chairs in the USSR can.
  9. Forest
    Forest April 2 2016 09: 42
    -2
    The author is a plus. I will advise his critics to sit down and compile tables of the composition of any troops.
    1. mine
      mine April 2 2016 14: 33
      -3
      Quote: Forest
      The author is a plus. I will advise his critics to sit down and compile tables of the composition of any troops.

      well, it means YOU belong to the category of "people hawala";)
      1. Forest
        Forest April 2 2016 15: 45
        +3
        Any information is valuable. Only someone will take everything in a row for the truth, instead of eliminating it.
  10. RUSEV
    RUSEV April 2 2016 09: 53
    -3
    America has always been a great sea power, just look at the map of the globe. And Russia will never catch up to the power of the American Navy, and even more so NATO! No matter how many people dream of parity with NATO, this is impossible!
    1. UREC
      UREC April 2 2016 10: 50
      +6
      And unnecessarily chasing parity in terms of tonnage and quantity. We need to do more submarines and anti-ship vehicles with a long range and good stealth.
    2. Boa kaa
      Boa kaa April 2 2016 16: 30
      +7
      Quote: RUSEV
      And Russia will never catch the power of the American Navy,

      You have a "three-point" firmly stuck in your brain. This is when the rocket goes to the target along the "chase curve", like a hound following a hare.
      Have you tried to "cut the corner", "straighten the trajectory"? Well, maybe you've heard something about the "asymmetric response". Eeee, for example, how did the DF-21D hunfuzs set against the Amsk AVU? And immediately the "danger zone" 1,5 miles away from the PRC moved to the Ocean! I understand: the Chinese people invented gunpowder, paper, porcelain. But our Lefty also shod a flea!
      Can we lower them to the bottom with something else? Well, the same PRK (submarine missile systems) or the Zircon-type GZPKR? or SLBMs with new combat equipment in an anti-ship version ... Be an optimist! NON-ALL-PROSRALIPOLIMERS!
      What is ahead of time to order a requiem?
      wink
  11. RUSEV
    RUSEV April 2 2016 09: 56
    -16%
    The American submarine fleet is enough to sink the entire Russian Navy. Wait, they will arrange more tsushima more than once! But Moscow and Kuznetsova are waiting for the fate of Bismarck and Yamamoto!
    1. Boa kaa
      Boa kaa April 2 2016 16: 34
      +4
      Quote: RUSEV
      Wait, they will arrange more tsushima more than once! But Moscow and Kuznetsova are waiting for the fate of Bismarck and Yamamoto!

      So here you are, our well-wisher !!!
      1. Tektor
        Tektor April 2 2016 19: 43
        0
        The American submarine fleet is enough to sink the entire Russian Navy. Wait, they will arrange more tsushima more than once!
        The mere presence of a particular military unit does not yet speak of someone's unconditional superiority, because use implies the presence of tactics, not to mention strategy. Here was such Usak Pasha. He had not the most beautiful squadron composition among other countries over whose empires the Sun did not set. However, he managed to take advantage of his capabilities and combat potential in such a way that he did not lose a single naval battle during his service. Tactics implies the search for their advantages in order to take advantage of them in the best way, as well as their weaknesses, so as not to expose them to the enemy. And our fleet has advantages, which gives us not weak chances for a victorious overall result. The fact that the main threat to our forces is visible from under the water is also known to the hedgehog. Question: how to deal with it? The answer is already clear: in the coastal zones the stationary type of underwater lighting systems are located, and in the remote areas - a network of underwater unmanned autonomous robots, as well as special submarines for lighting the underwater situation. Here the Americans are testing an autonomous reconnaissance diesel-electric submarine, and claim that he is able to detect a boat at a distance of a kilometer ... This cannot but cause a smile ... If you calculate how many such scouts are needed to cover dangerous areas, although the budget for this project can only be Rejoice and envy.
        We have forty sanctions and oil, which gave the GPV 2020 shift by 3 years, i.e. what was planned to be done before 2020 is planned to be implemented until 2023. And the new GPV will start with a delay of 3 years: from 2018. But you can be sure that the main parameters of the GPV will be met, which is actually required.
  12. kvs207
    kvs207 April 2 2016 10: 07
    +4
    Quote: RUSEV
    America has always been a great sea power

    America was not always a great maritime power. In first place, she moved forward, just during the Second World War.
    1. Santa Fe
      Santa Fe April 2 2016 10: 18
      +4
      Quote: kvs207
      In first place, she moved forward, just during the Second World War.

      Sure? But not before?

      "Great White Fleet"

      U.S. Navy 16 squadron battleships circumnavigation (16.12.1907 - 22.02.1909)
      The goal is to demonstrate to all potential allies / opponents their superiority at sea

      And here is the condition of the fleets of the British Empire and the USA for the 1923 year. Parity in large NK, 1,5-times superiority in the number of destroyers and submarines. it makes no sense to compare with other fleets, there is an order of magnitude lag.
      1. Cartalon
        Cartalon April 2 2016 22: 19
        +3
        Since the Washington Treaty of 1920, if memory serves the United States, they won first place at sea, the Britons after the First World War were not able to conduct a new race, primarily morally.
  13. RUSEV
    RUSEV April 2 2016 10: 10
    -26%
    The 145 millionth scattering is not a rival to 350 millionth North America and especially 800 millionth NATO! Remember this Russian! It's up to you to sit in your Khrushchevs and envy the rest of the world! You can’t do anything else!
    1. Operator
      Operator April 2 2016 11: 18
      +3
      What, Abdulhakim, does the point play in connection with the statement of Donald Trump about the desirability of the dissolution of NATO?

      PS Change the profile picture, Turk.
    2. guzik007
      guzik007 April 2 2016 11: 25
      +3
      Abdullo.you from which swamp you croak? What do you know how to do, besides vyser and somehow plaster? Sit still and do not blather until the visa is over. Then we tell you when you make homemade tortillas, about the great achievements of your Islamobad liberated from the oppression of Russia.
      By the way, not only visas will not be given to your beloved Aumerik, but they will not be trusted to sweep. So rejoice that from hunger, thanks to us, you are not lying with all your kagal.
    3. Kostya Andreev
      Kostya Andreev April 2 2016 12: 11
      +4
      Well, remember! then what you will continue to x .... u write.
      And the rest of the world is jealous of what? the world is big! Where are you from?
      And now you understand, we Russians ... your opinion and the opinion of the whole world, the days have passed when Russia helped all the rabble, Russia has its own interests. and if you need to eat der == mo to fulfill these interests, you will eat it (this is the European approach, the Russians learn very quickly, from partners both American and European).
      Regarding the fact that we don’t know anything, well, this is stupid, your example shows that even that degenerate, Russians can teach the Russian language.
      And besides tezhnologicheskim production and science, Russia can beat the muzzle well to the representatives of the rest of the world who have gone from impunity. For example, in Syria. Georgia, Ukraine.
      Get used to it, new times, new realities.
    4. Boa kaa
      Boa kaa April 2 2016 16: 50
      +10
      Quote: RUSEV
      Remember this Russian! It's up to you to sit in your Khrushchevs and envy the rest of the world! You can’t do anything else!
  14. guzik007
    guzik007 April 2 2016 11: 21
    +1
    I knew one pepper, which practically didn’t work anywhere with my wife, but I had all the cars and an apartment furnished with all the foreign tripe. Then it turned out, he took and took loans, not even hoping to give them back. And he lived until all the bailiffs described.
    Why am I doing this? Yes, about the multi-trillion debt, for which all this is configured. Only, I am afraid, there will be no bailiffs to describe this property for arrest.
  15. Kostya Andreev
    Kostya Andreev April 2 2016 11: 49
    +2
    it’s good to have a printing press, only happiness cannot last forever!
  16. andrew42
    andrew42 April 2 2016 16: 55
    +2
    Of course, the US Navy, together with the allies, is a terrifying colossus. But for the suppression of the Heartland, that is, Russia, it is not very popular. For action on a single local theater of operations - excessive. In fact, the whole world is working through green papers to maintain the US Navy, and not only the Navy. "Business - war - business touch." We definitely shouldn't strive for parity in the vastness of the world's oceans. Let them keep their troughs as long and as long as possible. Less money will be spent on other types of weapons. But we certainly need to tighten the Navy to a reasonable level. Especially for operations in northern latitudes.
  17. gorsten79
    gorsten79 April 2 2016 17: 43
    +2
    I wonder where on land are we stronger than the US? For example, in the Air Force.
  18. Kudrevkn
    Kudrevkn April 2 2016 19: 04
    +1
    Honestly, I thought more of a foe? I believe that not only Russia, but also China and India in five or ten years will destroy this "monopoly" on world domination in the oceans! I also believe that five years later, North Korea, which has already made a new sea-based ICBM (the missile-carrying boat will be brought to mind so that it will not sink after a salvo), will jump across Norfolk once and America will have a new Pearl - Harble - half of the aircraft carriers "kirdyk"! ?
    1. Cartalon
      Cartalon April 2 2016 22: 12
      0
      Do you really want to live in the world and do not want to descendants?
  19. SERGEYTSIKALUIK
    SERGEYTSIKALUIK April 2 2016 20: 49
    0
    Quote: mina
    Quote: cdrt
    and what is illiterate in accurate data collection?

    digits - yes neatly folded

    and here are the conclusions - sucking a dirty finger


    Conclusions can be made, of course, if you have a head on your shoulders. Plus to the author for detailed statistics. The article gives a visual representation of the existing balance of power. There would be more such articles on Military Review. I really expect from the author materials about the Russian fleet and the fleets of the countries of the world (China, India, Japan, Great Britain, France, etc.).
  20. iouris
    iouris April 2 2016 21: 59
    0
    What does the title mean (statistics)?
  21. Nasty pirate
    Nasty pirate April 4 2016 01: 28
    0
    Yeah, there are 2-3 times more different types of ships and submarines. Weak unification, alas, is our problem, and not only in the navy, aviation, this also applies, even more so.