Military Review

Short comparison of fleets

323



There is no reason for scientific analysis. The Russian Navy and the US Navy exist separately from each other, in different time eras. Just like the fleets of the First and Second World War.

Statistical methods do not work. In case of multiple quantitative discontinuity, it does not make sense to count the average age of the ship personnel. As well as determine the% ratio of new and old ships. In reality, these% will be expressed by a different number of ships for each of the fleets. Too different to take this calculation seriously.

The phenomenon of “average temperature”

It is enough to exclude from the calculations “obsolete equipment” (ships built before 2001), as it turns out the unexpected. For the first 15 years of the century, American shipyards transferred the fleet 36 destroyers (including the experimental Zamvolt and Burke-shaped Finn, which have not yet officially been accepted into the Navy, but have already been launched and put to the test).


PCU (pre-comission unit, object under completion) John Finn. It will take another couple of months, and the PCU code will change to USS (United States Ship).

No less serious results were shown by the shipyard “General Dynamic Electrical Electric”. During this period, the Virginia-class multipurpose 12 multi-purpose nuclear submarines and one submarine for special operations Carter (Sivulf class) were put into operation.

Of the big players, there are two nuclear aircraft carriers, Reagan and George Bush. Another (“Ford”), recognized as the largest warship in stories, was launched in 2013 g., this fall it will replenish the combat strength of the Navy.

From other aircraft carriers were built:

- a helicopter carrier with the unexpected name “America” (air wing from 30 helicopters, “Harriers” and F-35);

- Two universal landing craft class “Wasp” (“Iwo Jima” and “Makin Island”, each twice as large as Mistral);

- expeditionary floating ship base helicopter carrier “Puller” (78 thousand tons).

From the exotic - sea radar base of the missile defense system, designated SBX.

Short comparison of fleets


The next item is the six high-speed coastal zone warships (LCS), duplicating the tasks of patrol, minesweepers and submarine hunters.

Of the other large units: 11 amphibious assault ships of the type “San Antonio” and two naval terminals for the over-landing of armored vehicles: “Glenn” and “Monford Point”.

In total, a “brigade” of seventy ships of the ocean zone with an average age of less than ten years. Here you have all the statistics.

Excluding the “obsolete” ships built during the 1980-90x period, the “Nimitz” (1975 g) remains the oldest active ship. However, age is not so bad for aircraft carrier ships. Their main weapon is constantly evolving. Over the past 40 years, three generations of the marine have changed on the Nimitz deck aviation (“Phantom” - F-14 - “superhornet”).

And again about the Russian threat



In reality, everything is somewhat different than on the beautiful trailer of the Russian fleet. The success of domestic shipbuilders, expectedly, turned out to be much more modest.

Over the past 15 years, the Russian fleet received the Gepard multipurpose nuclear submarine (971 Ave.), the Severodvinsk multi-purpose nuclear icebreaker (885 Ave.) and three Borei-type strategic submarines.

Four diesel-electric boats pr 636.3 (modernized "Varshavyanka"). Thirty years ago, such “black holes” posed a mortal threat, however, at the beginning of the XXI century, the balance of power changed somewhat. The boats do not have enough anaerobic SU, without which they cannot survive in the conditions of modern PLO (they are forced to surface once in 3-4 of the day instead of two or three weeks for foreign analogues).

Of the surface units - five frigates ("Gorshkov", "Kasatonov", "Grigorovich", "Essen", "Makarov"). Four of them have not yet been officially commissioned, but we can confidently speak of them as of built ships. The main work front is over; three frigates have already reached the stage of mooring trials and GSI.


Corvette, Destroyer and Frigate

If desired, you can add to the list another seven corvettes, pr. 20380 and 11611. Talking about smaller units - IAC and IRA does not make sense.

What is a corvette or a small rocket ship?

On the night of October 7, 2015, the grouping of the ships of the Caspian Flotilla as part of the Dagestan rocket ship and three small rocket ships of the 21631 project produced group start 26-ti missiles 3М14 "Caliber-NK" on the objects of the Islamic state in Syria.


The volley of small ships of the Caspian Flotilla is equal to half the volley of the destroyer “Berk” (96 launchers). Further comments are superfluous.

Unlike smaller ships, the destroyer is still capable of hitting ballistic missile warheads and shooting down satellites in low near-earth orbits. Apart from large hydroacoustic stations, helicopters and other military equipment on board.

In this sense, the combat value of the “babes” is greatly exaggerated. Did someone seriously decide to equate the IRAs to destroyers? Well, the statistics will endure.

About the technical factor do not like to remember at all. The harsh truth is that, in principle, the Navy of the Russian Federation, like other fleets of the world, lacks the equipment available to American sailors.

The naval base of missile defense, submarine rocket bombs carrying Tomahawks in their 150 ridges, rocket-artillery destroyer and Aegis six-watt radar ...

At one time, trying to stay at the peak of progress, the USSR generated a lot of fresh and unique counter-solutions (super-heavy anti-ship missiles, titanium submarines, the Legend space system of intelligence).

The modern Navy has to be content with only those of the available technologies, the implementation of which does not require large expenditures. The result is what you would expect.

Fleet is not only ships. This is to a large extent naval aviation.

The potential of naval aviation of the Russian Navy undoubtedly increased with the start of deliveries of deck fighters MiG-29K (4 units) and coast-based fighters Su-30CM (8 units for Black Sea Fleet aviation).

On the other side of the scale - five hundred F / E-18E and 18F “Super Hornet”, put on the decks of American aircraft carriers with the beginning of a new century.

Among other foreign innovations is the creation of the Triton patrol drone (modified for the marine tasks of the Global Hawk UAV). The 15-ton apparatus with the 40-meter wing and the radar of the circular review, capable of inspecting a day before the 7 million square meters. kilometers of ocean surface. In addition to the radar with an active headlamp, the drone's tools include electronic reconnaissance equipment and a set of optical sensors with a laser rangefinder for visual target recognition. The newest history of the fleet.

Epilogue. “Elephant and pug”?

Favorite occupation of our “sofa experts” is the deliberately meaningless comparison of the potentials of the fleets of Russia and the USA. It contains no more sense than the mention of “pampers” and regular articles about the concern of the American command in connection with the “growing lag in the field of naval armaments from Russia and China.” The accumulated potential is so great that American admirals can “not climb the bridge” until the middle of the century.

Unlike them, it is contraindicated for us to relax. The above statistics clearly shows how effectively the rearmament of the Russian Navy is proceeding. And how much remains to be done in order to achieve, if not equal (which is impossible for either economic or geopolitical reasons), then to an adequate level compared to the “likely adversary”. Moreover, immediately declare such an armada as an adversary too recklessly. It is better to do everything so that the US Navy remains an ally, or at least a neutral.

Otherwise, why rush into a battle in which it is impossible to win?

However ... The quantitative and qualitative level of the Russian Navy and the United States is such that they are less likely to engage in battle with each other than ships of the period of the First and Second World War.

On the positive side, it is necessary to recognize that the current situation is not new and has its own logical explanation of its geographical nature. The history of the Anglo-Saxons is inextricably linked with the sea. Everything is completely different with us.

Hand on heart, we ask: what serious military consequences did Tsushima have? Did the Japanese reach Moscow? No - that's the whole answer. As well as the loss of part of Sevastopol during the Crimean War and its re-occupation during the Second World War. All of these were completely insignificant, minor troubles for a huge land power.


“Chained together”: BOD “Admiral Panteleyev” and the destroyer “Lassen”. Testing refueling on the go at sea.
Author:
323 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Yak28
    Yak28 April 4 2016 06: 29
    +20
    Briefly about the comparison of fleets, Russia lagged behind the USA in the 30 years, in the number of ships, submarines, sea-based aviation, sea-based air defense systems, and varieties of floating assets
    1. SU69
      SU69 April 4 2016 11: 37
      +5
      Quote: Yak28
      Briefly about the comparison of fleets, Russia lagged behind the USA in the 30 years, in the number of ships, submarines, sea-based aviation, sea-based air defense systems, and varieties of floating assets

      The article covers dozens of "hap-handed" opuses that are regularly posted here.
      Aw, Uryakalki!
      Refute the author with reason.
      1. kugelblitz
        kugelblitz April 4 2016 12: 23
        +5
        Og) Only here, more debate is about the difference in approaches to building a fleet rather. Let's say the WWII experience, and the Falklands say that aviation and submarines are a very serious adversary, and a mosquito fleet, under the cover of coastal air defense units, can even stand up for itself. wassat
      2. Serg65
        Serg65 April 4 2016 12: 53
        +10
        Quote: SU69
        Refute the author with reason.

        To refute what? Is the US Navy superior to the Russian Navy? So yes, superior. The fact that the bulk of surface ships of the Russian Navy is outdated ... and this is true.

        Quote: SU69
        The article covers dozens of "hap-handed" opuses that are regularly posted here.

        In the article, A is usually said, but is categorically ignored B. In the United States, aviation and the Navy are the main branches of the armed forces, in Russia, the Aerospace Forces, ground forces ... and the Navy, the advantage of the Russian fleet will come only when a powerful power with strong Aerospace Forces and ground forces, in this case the commander of the TFR "Sharp-witted" does not care who is in front of him ... AV "Ford" or EM Zamvolt!
      3. opus
        opus April 4 2016 13: 41
        +12
        Quote: SU69
        Refute the author with reason.

        but what to refute?


        Quote: Author
        Hand on heart, we ask: what serious military consequences did Tsushima have? Did the Japanese get to Moscow? No - that’s the whole answer. As well as the loss of part of Sevastopol during the Crimean War and its re-occupation during the Second World War. All these were completely insignificant, minor troubles for a huge land power.

        It?
        What for?
        and so everyone knows for a long time:

        War for the Arctic (now): the alignment is not in favor of the Northern Fleet

        Northern Fleet Naval Aviation Fleet:
        12 Su-33 and 14 MiG-29K / KUB fighter jets, 5 Tu-22MR long-range reconnaissance aircraft, 3 Tu-142M long-range anti-submarine aircraft, 10 Il-38 anti-submarine aircraft and 4 Tu-142MR relay aircraft.

        Northern Fleet Naval Aviation Heliport:
        20 Ka-27PL anti-submarine helicopters, 2 Ka-31 radar patrol helicopters, 16 Ka-29 transport and combat helicopters and 24 Mi-8 multi-purpose helicopters.

        Fleet:
        9 strategic missile submarines, 3 missile submarines with cruise missiles, project 949A, 14 multipurpose nuclear submarines and 7 non-nuclear (diesel-electric).

        1 heavy aircraft carrier cruiser “Admiral of the Fleet of the Soviet Union Kuznetsov” pr. 11435, 2 heavy nuclear missile cruisers pr. 11442, (“Admiral Nakhimov” and “Peter the Great”), 1 missile cruiser pr. 1164 (“Marshal Ustinov”), 5 large anti-submarine ships, pr. 1155, 2 destroyers, pr. 956, 3 small missile ships, pr. 12341 and 12347, 6 small anti-submarine ships, pr. 1124 M, 3 sea and 7 base and raid minesweepers and 4 large landing ships, pr. 775

        --------------------------- Well, now give the Arctic as Alaska?

        Russia's nuclear potential determines the threshold of any conflict - a point of no return.

        We cannot win, cause UNACCEPTABLE damage - yes.
        Even potentially. That’s enough.

        This is the basis for the doctrine.
        For START 4 ​​Mantras:
        1. bit.baytov
          bit.baytov April 7 2016 20: 28
          +1
          There are a lot of different pictures and different numbers, but most of all I liked the picture with "FOOT" Expressive image however ... :))
      4. KaPToC
        KaPToC April 4 2016 18: 01
        +2
        The range of the Russian anti-ship cruise missiles is five hundred + plus kilometers, not a single American destroyer or cruiser can fit the distance of firing their own missiles, in fact, only aircraft carriers will fight the Russian fleet.
        The author himself wrote about the incorrectness of the general comparison and he immediately began to compare, but let's compare for specific tasks:
        PLO - yield
        Air defense - give way
        transport opportunities - inferior
        landing capabilities - give way
        anti-ship potential - surpass.
        1. opus
          opus April 4 2016 21: 16
          -3
          Quote: KaPToC
          not a single American destroyer or cruiser will fit the distance of firing their missiles

          Well, these are:

          will fly up?


          The data is old (laziness), but now even worse

          --------------------------
          I can’t understand why our multipurpose nuclear submarines (DELP) with anti-ship missiles can sneak up unnoticed by USNAVI (according to "our" uryakrya), but their MPSs with anti-ship missiles cannot?


          -------------------
          And these?


          Threat we have a base for the Russian Air Force near the military naval bases of NATO, the United States ... I forgot something!
          1. KaPToC
            KaPToC April 4 2016 22: 34
            0
            But I just wrote that only aircraft carriers, destroyers and cruisers can fight the Russian fleet, by the cash register.
            Our multi-purpose nuclear submarines have a cruising range of 500 km, and they have 120 km.
            1. opus
              opus April 5 2016 00: 35
              +1
              Quote: KaPToC
              destroyers and cruisers - past the checkout

              1. type of destroyer destroyers URO (the Arleigh Burke class destroyers)
              main combat tasks:

              -Protection of their own carrier and ship attack groups from massive missile attacks by an adversary who uses anti-ship missiles launched both from surface ships and from nuclear submarines with missile systems.
              -Air defense of one's own forces (naval formations, convoys or individual ships) from enemy aircraft.


              Minor The tasks of ships of this type are:

              Fighting enemy submarines and surface ships;
              Ensuring sea blockade of certain areas;
              Artillery support for landing operations;
              Tracking enemy ships;
              Participation in search and rescue operations.

              request

              2. Cruisers URO U.S. Navy (Guided Missile Cruiser) CG 47 Ticonderoga
              Do I need to write about primary / secondary?


              2 × 4 PKPK "Harpoon"
              UVP on 122 cells for Tomahawk / SM-1 missiles (RIM-161 Standard Missile 3)
              Typical loading of UVP on Ticonderoga-class cruisers - 26 Tomahawk cruise missiles, 16 ASROC missile launchers and 80 Standard-2 missiles (what is there to fight with the Navy of the USSR / RF?)

              Quote: KaPToC
              past the cash register.
              or black cash, your freaks do not matter

              Aegis combat system and destroyers URO and cruisers URO sharpened, under missile defense / air defense.
              Alles Klaer & =?

              Quote: KaPToC
              Our multi-purpose nuclear submarines have a cruising range of 500 km, and they have 120 km.

              1. For a long time already in service A / U / RGM-84D2 = 280km (For UGM-84D2 submarines), the fuel tank was increased by 0,6 m.
              2. The range of the battle is not such a concept, and ours at the "five hundred" control center have nothing to give
              3. The carrier is dock, and A / U / RGM is an order of magnitude larger.
              And ours for "stop a hundred" are not "undersupply", but few, and the carriers are generally an order of magnitude less
              1. KaPToC
                KaPToC April 5 2016 01: 22
                -2
                Quote: opus
                Protection of own carrier and ship attack groups from massive enemy missile attacks

                I want to draw your attention to shooting down a heavy Soviet supersonic missile and shooting down a subsonic rickety harpoon - these are not the same thing.
                Quote: opus
                For a long time already in service A / U / RGM-84D2 = 280km (U UMM-84D2 submarines) - the fuel tank was increased by 0,6 m.

                This is an aviation Kyrgyz Republic and still 280 km - two times less than that of Granite.
                Quote: opus
                Dock carrier

                As many as twelve aircraft carriers.


                Quote: opus
                main combat missions

                And why do you think all these destroyers and cruisers, if they will NOT participate in the sinking of Russian ships? You count counters.
                1. opus
                  opus April 5 2016 02: 44
                  +2
                  Quote: KaPToC
                  I want to turn in

                  1. Did you shoot down? Well, or "someone"? That's it
                  2.A if STOP, one hundred rickety attacks against 7
                  Quote: KaPToC
                  heavy supersonic soviet rocket

                  chances of a breakthrough?
                  3. EPR, like the MIG-21. the mass is similar, it is on the program, GOS, let's say so-so.
                  4.A lot of carriers that can take run
                  Quote: KaPToC
                  heavy supersonic soviet rocket
                  ?
                  Rickety can and canoe put (joke)
                  So make conclusions
                  Quote: KaPToC
                  This is an aviation Kyrgyz Republic and still 280 km

                  fool

                  A / U / RGM-84D2 = 280km

                  Airborne Based - AGM-84
                  ship (coastal) based - RGM-84
                  for launching from submarines - UGM-84

                  Threat they have with "C" / "D" used for a long time fuel of increased energy intensity
                  (JP-10 instead of JP-5).

                  GOS, with high resolution, operates in the range of 15,3-17,2 GHz (weight 34 kg,pulse power 35 kWW / D: + -45 °. 34 km wide, now larger) IBM-4PSPOA (replaceable)
                  84D2
                  Quote: opus
                  fuel tank increased by 0,6 m.

                  280 km, this is HI-LO-LO
                  А
                  Quote: KaPToC
                  This is aviation KR
                  ...
                  The essential difference between the Harpoon aircraft missiles AGM-84 from other options
                  is lack of solid fuel starting acceleratordue to which they have less starting weight and length. Accelerator (weight 137 kg, fuel mass 66 kg, thrust 6600 kgf)

                  Quote: KaPToC
                  As many as twelve aircraft carriers.

                  1. I can’t see who has more than 2 on the ball?
                  2.And how many SSN-774? in which WHOLE 12 missile silos? What about the SSN-688?
                  Quote: KaPToC
                  And why do you think all these destroyers and cruisers, if they will NOT participate in the sinking of Russian ships? AT

                  1. You do not confuse me with the author.
                  2.They will cover
                  Quote: KaPToC
                  As many as twelve aircraft carriers.
                  and rollers and something else.
                  But after the ammunition
                  Quote: KaPToC
                  heavy supersonic soviet rocket
                  , very limited by the way, it will be spent, the pack of the day (from 60-70 destroyers URO and how many cruisers, or rather, what remains of them), will be engaged in a defenseless enemy and communications (a secondary task)
              2. bit.baytov
                bit.baytov April 7 2016 19: 45
                -2
                I repeat .. Oh, oh, oh. How many scary pictures with American horror stories. Where are my diapers? However, if we recall the case of the American destroyer Donald Cook and the modest front-line reconnaissance aircraft Su-24 with the support of the electronic warfare system, it becomes clear that with a complex attack of an aircraft carrier group with weapons including electronic warfare equipment, the US aircraft carrier group will get a kayak , and with it dozens of aircraft :)
                Further on yours: "I just can't understand why our multipurpose nuclear submarines (DELP) with anti-ship missiles can sneak up unnoticed by USNAVI (according to" our "uryakrya), but their MPS with anti-ship missiles cannot?
                Our submarines did not just creep up to USNAVI, but also went right under the belly of these USNAVI, surfaced right in New York :))
                And on stupidity: "Shl we have a base of the Russian Air Force near the naval bases of NATO, the United States ... I forgot something!" ... Why place "Russian Air Force bases near NATO naval bases"? Not in order to be destroyed? We have enough territory for bases.
                At the end. The real balance of power was shown by the events in Syria - they somehow immediately brought down arrogance from the "brave good guys." The Americans themselves know the value of their aging weapon (which is not all functional) and its strength in its large numbers.
                However, as Suvorov used to say: "You have to fight not by numbers, but by skill."
            2. Nehist
              Nehist April 5 2016 03: 24
              0
              Remind you how many miles are territorial waters?
          2. bit.baytov
            bit.baytov April 7 2016 19: 25
            0
            "I just can't understand why our multipurpose nuclear submarines (DELP) with anti-ship missiles can sneak up unnoticed by USNAVI (according to the version of" our "uryakrya), but their MPSs with anti-ship missiles cannot?

            Threat we have a base for the Russian Air Force near the military naval bases of NATO, the United States ... I forgot something! [/ Quote]
          3. bit.baytov
            bit.baytov April 7 2016 19: 43
            0
            Oh oh oh. How many scary pictures with American horror stories. Where are my diapers? However, if we recall the case of the American destroyer Donald Cook and the modest front-line reconnaissance aircraft Su-24 with the support of the electronic warfare system, it becomes clear that with a complex attack of an aircraft carrier group with weapons including electronic warfare equipment, the US aircraft carrier group will get a kayak , and with it dozens of aircraft :)
            Further on yours: "I just can't understand why our multipurpose nuclear submarines (DELP) with anti-ship missiles can sneak up unnoticed by USNAVI (according to" our "uryakrya), but their MPS with anti-ship missiles cannot?
            Our submarines did not just creep up to USNAVI, but also went right under the belly of these USNAVI, surfaced right in New York :))
            And on stupidity: "Shl we have a base of the Russian Air Force near the naval bases of NATO, the United States ... I forgot something!" ... Why place "Russian Air Force bases near NATO naval bases"? Not in order to be destroyed? We have enough territory for bases.
            At the end. The real balance of power was shown by the events in Syria - they somehow immediately brought down arrogance from the "brave good guys." The Americans themselves know the value of their aging weapon (which is not all functional) and its strength in its large numbers.
            However, as Suvorov used to say: "You have to fight not by numbers, but by skill."
      5. nemez
        nemez April 4 2016 18: 25
        -7
        any aircraft carrier is destroyed by one RTO, respectively, hundreds of aircraft are destroyed along with it. So an aircraft carrier is a dubious and very expensive toy.
        1. NEXUS
          NEXUS April 4 2016 19: 06
          +3
          Quote: nemez
          any aircraft carrier is destroyed by one RTO, respectively, hundreds of aircraft are destroyed along with it. So an aircraft carrier is a dubious and very expensive toy.

          Aircraft carriers do not go alone, but only accompanied by a group of destroyers, nuclear submarines and cruisers that provide missile defense for the entire AUG. In addition, the aircraft carrier itself has its own means of protection against anti-ship missiles.
          In order to drown an aircraft carrier you need from 12 to 20 hits of anti-ship missiles of the Granit class. At missile defense systems there is not so much typed in a salvo, even without taking into account the operation of the ABM defense.
          In addition, it’s not that the RTOs, the cruiser to the AUG on the range of the RCC’s work is very problematic.
          1. kirgudu
            kirgudu April 4 2016 19: 51
            -2
            In case of war, the naughty will be nuclear charges. One rocket is enough.
            1. NEXUS
              NEXUS April 4 2016 19: 57
              +3
              Quote: kirgudu
              In case of war, the naughty will be nuclear charges. One rocket is enough.

              In the event of a war, we will not only "smack", but also at us ... and this Armageddian will not bypass any state of the nuclear club. So the sofa experts who so easily talk about the use of nuclear weapons, I would like to ask YOUR KINGDOM AND CLOSE ARE READY FOR THIS? Because sitting on the couch and talking about the use of ICBMs, they apparently do not have enough brains to understand a thought as simple as a hum-in the event of a nuclear war, survivors envy the dead.
              1. kirgudu
                kirgudu April 5 2016 18: 06
                -2
                What does the MBR have to do with it? Initially, anti-ship missiles were designed for a nuclear warhead.
              2. igorka357
                igorka357 April 6 2016 06: 00
                -1
                No need to be very clever here! The man wanted to say that you are discussing purely theoretical options for the battle of our fleets, in practice this will only last a short time, And of course Russia cannot be the winner here, it follows that then strategic forces will strike, rather everything from our territory will be the first to launch, since there is no point in waiting for us! Who told you that the survivors will envy the dead? If there is no personal damage to your physical condition, I doubt that you will envy the dead! You looked death in the eyes .. if not, it's not for you to judge the will of a person to live! Your relatives and friends are in vain to touch, all the more insulting them, and in order for them to be ready for such a situation, you must take care, since you are so smart .. at least to study the commands "flash from the left, from the front "and so on .. And besides, you generally goofed up in haste to press down the" illiterate ", the person generally meant an anti-ship missile with a special warhead!
          2. Ustinov 055 055
            Ustinov 055 055 April 5 2016 09: 59
            -1
            Well, please do not lie 20 hits, the 1st is enough in the cellar or fuel storage. If 5 can withstand already the feat of 10 fiction and 20 is your nonsense
          3. Ustinov 055 055
            Ustinov 055 055 April 5 2016 09: 59
            -1
            Well, please do not lie 20 hits, the 1st is enough in the cellar or fuel storage. If 5 can withstand already the feat of 10 fiction and 20 is your nonsense
        2. opus
          opus April 4 2016 21: 41
          +1
          Quote: nemez
          any aircraft carrier is destroyed by one RTO, with

          Although there would be one case of the destruction of an RTO aircraft carrier .....
          1. KaPToC
            KaPToC April 4 2016 22: 35
            0
            There was no case of the sinking of a glory project or an Atlas aircraft carrier, the conclusion is that they are unsinkable?
            1. opus
              opus April 5 2016 00: 27
              0
              Quote: KaPToC
              There was no case of the sinking of a glory project or an Atlas aircraft carrier,

              and I claimed that AB would drown
              Quote: KaPToC
              project glory or atlas

              ...?
              WHERE?
              But "pupsik" claims
              Quote: nemez
              any aircraft carrier destroyed one RTOs, respectively, destroyed with him a hundred aircraft
              1. KaPToC
                KaPToC April 5 2016 01: 13
                0
                Quote: opus
                and I claimed that AB would drown

                So the entire fleet is unsinkable? And I brought a parallel so that you understand how stupid your argument sounds that RTOs have never drowned an aircraft carrier. Everything once happens for the first time.
                1. opus
                  opus April 5 2016 13: 51
                  0
                  Quote: KaPToC
                  So the entire fleet is unsinkable?

                  Quote: KaPToC
                  subsonic rickety harpoon
                  and other "rickety subsonic" (Exocet for example), drowned and damaged the ships.
                  Examples to give?
                  а
                  Quote: KaPToC
                  heavy supersonic soviet rocket
                  something did not work out / failed.
                  Therefore, the statement about RTOs and the aircraft carrier, as well as about supersonic anti-ship missiles, is not very impressive
                  Quote: KaPToC
                  And brought a parallel

                  You bring the perpendicular.
                  Quote: KaPToC
                  how stupid is your argument that MRCs are still

                  Well, your arguments cannot even be called "stupid", below the plinth:
                  Quote: KaPToC
                  A / U / RGM-84D2 = 280km (For UGM-84D2 submarines), the fuel tank was increased by 0,6 m.
                  It aviation KR and all the same 280 km - two times less than that of Granite.

                  Quote: KaPToC
                  destroyers and cruisers - past the checkout.

                  well and so on
                  Quote: KaPToC
                  Everything once happens for the first time.

                  that's how it happens, and talk.
                  PS. For a project 21631 for some reason load
                  Quote: KaPToC
                  subsonic rickety
                  "Caliber"....
              2. bit.baytov
                bit.baytov April 7 2016 20: 32
                0
                And this "pupsik" is right ...: "any aircraft carrier is destroyed by one MRK, respectively, hundreds of aircraft are destroyed along with it"
      6. __VESCT0R__
        __VESCT0R__ April 4 2016 22: 50
        0
        And what to refute it? This is Kaptsov! Zamvolt + armored belt + artillery instead of rocket weapons is the formula for success according to Kaptsov!)))
      7. pilot8878
        pilot8878 April 4 2016 23: 33
        +1
        Quote: SU69
        Refute the author with reason.

        There is no need to refute. We must take it for granted and strive to reduce the gap, while not forgetting that Russia is a power, primarily a land power. To, for example, reach the English Channel, we need a ground army, and the Americans need a fleet for "world hegemony."
    2. Dmitry 2246
      Dmitry 2246 April 4 2016 11: 41
      +3
      The case when the quantity does not go into the quality of the tasks. A missile from an Argentinean aircraft indicated the direction of development of anti-punitive combat.
      The runway is very difficult to recover when damaged by a missile on any aircraft carrier.
      Russia does not have this problem.
      Our aircraft carriers are unsinkable. These are Latakia, Crimea, Kaliningrad Oblast, the North of Russia, Kamchatka, and the Kuril Islands. Let me remind you the radius of action of our fighters allows you to solve the emerging modern challenges.
      A strike from the inland sea against targets in Syria, an MRC simply negates NATO’s superiority in ships.
      Is it possible to resist missiles with a huge ship grouping?
      Then a nuclear air explosion.
      The entire concept of a "safe" military confrontation, as in Yugoslavia, Iraq, Libya, etc., collapsed.
      Hence the impotent rage of the partners.
      1. kote119
        kote119 April 4 2016 11: 59
        0
        Quote: Dmitry 2246
        A strike from the inland sea against targets in Syria, an MRC simply negates NATO’s superiority in ships.

        but what about the blow to targets in Syria and nullifying the superiority of NATO ships? if you don’t understand what they shot and how I work, read these missiles, there’s a lot of material
        1. SU69
          SU69 April 4 2016 12: 04
          -13%
          Quote: kote119
          Quote: Dmitry 2246
          A strike from the inland sea against targets in Syria, an MRC simply negates NATO’s superiority in ships.

          but what about the blow to targets in Syria and nullifying the superiority of NATO ships? if you don’t understand what they shot and how I work, read these missiles, there’s a lot of material

          The main thing is "fart into a puddle"! laughing
          1. Serg65
            Serg65 April 4 2016 12: 55
            +1
            Quote: SU69
            The main thing is "fart into a puddle"

            Well, you, a non-fan of "farting into a puddle", what can you say on this issue?
      2. opus
        opus April 4 2016 13: 28
        +1
        Quote: Dmitry 2246
        A strike from the inland sea against targets in Syria, an MRC simply negates NATO’s superiority in ships.

        belay
        like this?
        1. Almost every NATO ship (except for aircraft carriers and small fry) is the carrier of a CRBD (or anti-ship missile, or SAM)

        23 Los Angeles-type submarines, 12 missiles - a total of 276 missiles;
        4 upgraded Ohio-class submarines, up to 154 missiles (7 missiles in drum-type launchers for each of 22 mines from Trident SLBMs) ​​- up to a total of 616 missiles;
        3 submarines of the Sivulf type, up to 50 charges for torpedo tubes, including cruise missiles - up to 150 missiles in total;
        9 submarines of the Virginia type, up to 12 missiles - a total of 108 missiles;
        The British submarine type "Suiftshur" displacement 4900 tons, 5 torpedo tubes, 20 torpedoes and missiles;
        The British submarine type Trafalgar displacement 5200 tons, 5 torpedo tubes, 25 torpedoes and missiles;
        British strike submarine of the Astyut type (2007, the first of four of this class), displacement 7200 / 7800 tons, service life ~ 30 years, 6 torpedo tubes, 48 torpedoes and missiles;
        61 destroyers of the “Arly Burke” type in service, the capacity of two VPU Mk41 of the Aegis system is 90/96 cells (depending on the ship series). In the universal version of armament, the ship carries 8 “Tomahawks”, in shock - 56, in total from 488 to 3416 KR;
        22 missile cruisers of the Ticonderoga type, VPU Mk41 capacity of the Aegis system - 122 cells, typical load - 26 KR Tomahawk - total 2648 KR;
        Since 2016, the launch of 2 new DDG-1000 destroyers with 80 launchers each - a total of 160 KR

        2. We have at most 100KR / RCC type "Caliber" (I think less, the USSR stamped about 100 ("Alpha" (ROC "Turquoise"), "3M10" - excluding ground-based)
        They have from 4286 to 7254 KR Tomogavk (we will believe VIKI), in fact, less - up to 5000 pieces

        + up to 5000 Harpoon (block III about 800 pieces)
        3.ZM-14 is not threatened either by US / NATO ships ...
        Quote: Dmitry 2246
        Let me remind you the radius of action of our fighters allows us to solve the emerging modern challenges.

        such as "does not allow" them?
        It’s easier for them:

        + floating galoshes (AUG)

        Quote: Dmitry 2246
        Then a nuclear air explosion.

        then
        Quote: Dmitry 2246
        Our aircraft carriers: These are Latakia, Crimea, Kaliningrad Oblast, Northern Russia, Kamchatka, and the Kuril Islands.

        will become drowned
        1. Operator
          Operator April 4 2016 14: 10
          +3
          Do not go too far:
          - Or a conventional conflict, and then in the confrontation with the US Navy our unsinkable aircraft carriers and bases of the Kyrgyz Republic Kaliningrad, Crimea, Khmeimim, Primorsky Territory, Kuril Islands and Kamchatka play a role;
          - or a nuclear conflict, when the very meaning of using the American fleet for escorting and landing operations outside the territorial waters of the United States will be destroyed.
          1. opus
            opus April 4 2016 14: 23
            0
            Quote: Operator
            - Or a conventional conflict, and then in the confrontation with the US Navy our unsinkable aircraft carriers and bases of the Kyrgyz Republic Kaliningrad, Crimea, Khmeimim, Primorsky Territory, Kuril Islands and Kamchatka play a role;

            drown without nuclear weapons

            Quote: Operator
            - or a nuclear conflict, when the very meaning of using the American fleet for escorting and landing operations outside the territorial waters of the United States will be destroyed.

            therefore, they won’t sink without nuclear weapons, since the war with non-nuclear weapons will inevitably come to the nuclear threshold.
            They know it, we know it

            To crap - yes (crap, crap and will), but they themselves will not enter into conflict (even having now, and in the long term, an overwhelming advantage.
            They will carry out START-4,5, *** THE WORLD BAN OF NW. Everyone will hit without even thinking
            1. Operator
              Operator April 4 2016 14: 42
              -1
              "They will sink without nuclear weapons" vs "they will not sink without nuclear weapons" - "What's the truth, brother?" (FROM).

              The topics raised by the author of the article under discussion make sense only in the first case, even hypothetical. Therefore, most commentators come from this.

              RNW has been ours all since 1957, otherwise there is nothing to control the Heartland and the zone of our national interests. We and the Anglo-Saxons know this.
              1. opus
                opus April 4 2016 18: 39
                0
                Quote: Operator
                "They will sink without nuclear weapons" vs "they will not sink without nuclear weapons" - "What's the truth, brother?" (FROM).

                drown.
                Why don’t we see the English marines (American, French and others) take off in Sevastopol (the cemetery has already been bored since the XNUMXth century, and the Germans from the XNUMXth (but they don’t have MP)) - because the damage they will receive is in the XNUMXst they are not acceptable.
                The electorate will not tolerate.
                And so, neither S-300PMU (ammunition is not enough) nor the Su-27 interceptor regiment will technically save.

                In 1952, US President Harry Truman declared:
                “We will wipe from the face of the earth any ports and cities that will need to be destroyed to achieve our goals” ...

                In 1955, the S-25 system entered service with the Soviet Army.

                Quote: Operator
                Topics covered by the author

                The author is a fan of our fleet (I hope)
                Quote: Operator
                RW - our everything since 1957

                which 1957?

                An R-7 ICBM at the Angara launch station?

                In 1961, the deployment of the new intercontinental missile R-16 (SS-7) was launched

                In 1962, the Soviet Union could deliver ballistic missiles and bombers to the United States no more than 300 warheads. As part of the strategic forces of the United States in 1962 there were about 1300 bombers capable of delivering to the territory of the USSR over 3000 warheads. In addition, the US strategic forces in 1962 included 183 Atlas and Titan intercontinental missiles, as well as 144 missiles in nine Polaris submarines. In October 1962, the United States began the deployment of new Minuteman solid-fuel rockets, which were distinguished by very high combat effectiveness.
        2. KaPToC
          KaPToC April 4 2016 18: 17
          +2
          We are comparing fleets, how will 7000 tomahawks fight the Russian fleet? How are harpoons threatening the Russian fleet, if their combat range is only 150 km, who will let these one hundred and five hundred ships per 150 km?
          US submarines shoot harpoons THROUGH TORPO DEVICES.
          Can the Americans even create a massive enough salvo of anti-ship missiles to push through the air defense of the Russian fleet?
          1. opus
            opus April 4 2016 18: 45
            0
            Quote: KaPToC
            We are comparing fleets, how will 7000 tomahawks fight the Russian fleet?

            They are for this purpose.
            Quote: KaPToC
            How are harpoons threatening the Russian fleet, if their combat range is only 150 km, who will let these one hundred and five hundred ships per 150 km?

            A / U / RGM-84D2 = 280km

            AGM-158C LRASM on the way




            Quote: KaPToC
            US submarines shoot harpoons THROUGH TORPO DEVICES.

            not only (apl)



            and what is "bad" through TA?


            Quote: KaPToC
            Can the Americans even create a massive enough salvo of anti-ship missiles to push through the air defense of the Russian fleet?

            yes. it's obvious
            1. igorka357
              igorka357 April 6 2016 06: 16
              0
              Listen, dear, in the event of such a situation, when the Amer fleet’s armada goes to our fleet, it will have to break through the defenses of all our anti-aircraft missile defense systems, because our fleet, having no chance of winning the open sea, will be pressed to the coast! Under the protection of coastal complexes, and coastal Aviation! But there already the Amer fleet has no chance of success, or you want to say that only the US Navy can defeat Russia? Do you discuss nonsense in general, Oleg threw up the empty topic as always, and you got stuck .. then he has armor against shell, then Russia against the United States .. whose fleet is better than ours or them .. in short, the author is a troll, but in a good sense of the word, interestingly informative, and it's funny to look at you!
        3. Dmitry 2246
          Dmitry 2246 April 4 2016 18: 47
          -1
          Funny card.
          Crimea, Kuril Islands, Sakhalin do not belong to us? Representative of opponents.
          "Everything is lost!"
          And Syria is a convincing fact. For specialists.
          Therefore, they fly to Putin, and not he rushes about the world.
          1. opus
            opus April 4 2016 19: 14
            -1
            Quote: Dmitry 2246
            Crimea, Kuril Islands, Sakhalin do not belong to us?

            What are the Kuril Islands, what is the Crimea?
            And Crimea ... well, they haven’t drawn it yet. And this is not important. THERE ARE NOT AND WASN’T
            NATO bases !!!!
            On Sakhalin, the Kuril Islands, too.
            This is not important. Fundamentally, their base. What has changed?



            And so, yes thanks, I didn’t pay attention to the flaws. Yellow / Green didn’t pay attention, so I didn’t draw


            Quote: Dmitry 2246
            Representative of opponents.

            I?
            Lada, then you are a representative ...

            Quote: Dmitry 2246
            "Everything is lost!"

            The pattern is hackneyed. But I never said that
            Quote: Dmitry 2246
            And Syria is a convincing fact. For specialists.

            It’s clear for specialists that comparing air defense (which is not), the Air Force (which is not), the Navy (which is not), bearded, with the Air Force, Air Defense, Navy, even the United States (we will keep silent about NATO) is silly
            1. bit.baytov
              bit.baytov April 7 2016 20: 20
              +1
              Yes, yes and yes again. It is stupid: "For specialists it is clear that comparing air defense (which does not exist), the air force (which does not exist), the navy (which does not exist) bearded, with the air force, air defense, navy, even if the United States (we will keep silent about NATO) is stupid."
              The German Air Force was able to fly to Syria in the amount of several aircraft. France mastered several sorties to be noted. And everyone stopped flying after the inclusion of Russian systems in Hmeimim. Europe has neither the Air Force nor air defense except the American. The Americans are too keen on making Europe dependent on the United States, so they have to demand money from Europe for billets and food for bases. :)))
        4. igorka357
          igorka357 April 6 2016 06: 07
          0
          How do you like tsiferki and different repost schemes a .. wink !
          1. bit.baytov
            bit.baytov April 7 2016 20: 23
            -1
            Tries to convince us that we are weak. The real balance of power was shown by the events in Syria - they somehow immediately brought down arrogance from the "brave good guys." The Americans themselves know the value of their aging weapon (which is not all functional) - its strength lies in its large numbers.
            However, as Suvorov used to say: "You have to fight not by numbers, but by skill."
    3. qwert
      qwert April 4 2016 16: 01
      +4
      I will say briefly: KAPTSOV RIGHT !!! I rarely say this, but now only a blind man can say otherwise
      1. dakty
        dakty April 4 2016 18: 24
        +3
        I agree with you. Yes, our fleet is currently behind the states. So this is no secret. I am more surprised by Kaptsov's rags and duplicity: he recently published an article in which SCOULED that the states had cut all of their own because it was unnecessary to confront modern Russia, and now published an article that our fleet was nothing compared to the state fleet. The hypocrite, fig. Not the first time! Once again I ask a question to the administration: can you write the author at the top of the article? I will immediately know, read or save my time!
        1. igorka357
          igorka357 April 6 2016 06: 19
          0
          True, Oleg Kaptsov is an ordinary troll-changeling, but reading it is sometimes interesting!
        2. bit.baytov
          bit.baytov April 7 2016 20: 41
          0
          So what article the owner will allocate a grant, such an article and write. And the tail wags :)
      2. igorka357
        igorka357 April 6 2016 06: 18
        -1
        What? The fact that the Russian Navy is inferior to the US Navy, but no one doubted it! The essence of the topic and article is different, if you did not understand your problems!
        1. bit.baytov
          bit.baytov April 7 2016 20: 43
          0
          The essence of this article is reconnaissance provocative. If we don’t learn new things from our opponents, we’ll try to scare them.
      3. bit.baytov
        bit.baytov April 7 2016 20: 36
        +1
        You try to convince us that we are weak. The real balance of power was shown by the events in Syria - they somehow immediately brought down arrogance from the "brave good guys." The Americans themselves know the value of their aging weapon (which is not all functional) - its strength lies in its large numbers.
        However, as Suvorov used to say: "You have to fight not by numbers, but by skill."
    4. Butchcassidy
      Butchcassidy April 4 2016 16: 45
      0
      Quote: Yak28
      As well as the loss of part of Sevastopol during the Crimean War and its re-occupation during the Second World War. All these were completely insignificant, minor troubles for a huge land power.


      The author of the article would like to say: I'm laughing at you)) Dap-hopper percent of Russia's trade goes through the Black Sea, do not remind?
      1. opus
        opus April 4 2016 18: 56
        +2
        Quote: ButchCassidy
        Lope-lope percent of Russia's trade goes through the Black Sea, do not remind?

        1. In 1914, the breakthrough of Göben and Breslau blocked about 90% of the foreign trade of the Russian Empire.
        2. In the cargo turnover of the Black Sea ports of Russia in 2011 amounted to 172,8 million tons, which is 2,1% more than 2010.


        in 2010 amounted to a cargo turnover of ALL ports of Russia amounted to 526 million tons.

        So consider 30% (for 2010, now there’s a larger share, mk + Crimea and + sanctions - flowed from the Baltic to the World Cup)) is it a lot or a little
        1. Operator
          Operator April 4 2016 20: 28
          0
          It is interesting, with whom in case of war will Russia trade through the ports of the Black Sea-Azov basin? laughing
          1. Vadim237
            Vadim237 April 4 2016 20: 58
            0
            In the event of a war and with whom?
          2. opus
            opus April 4 2016 21: 06
            0
            Quote: Operator
            It is interesting, with whom in case of war will Russia trade through the ports of the Black Sea-Azov basin?


            Russian ports in 2014 handled 491,6 million tons of export cargo (an increase of 6,7%), 43,4 million tons of imported cargo (a decrease of 5,7%), 47,6 million tons of transit (an increase of 1,4 %), 40,8 million tons of cabotage (an increase of 13,2%), which is presented in the figure below.
            Further from the slides everything is visible.





            PS I did not bring "Goeben" and "Breslau", from 1914 ...
            1. Operator
              Operator April 4 2016 22: 40
              -1
              The ports of the Azov-Black Sea basin ship products of the mining industry (coal, oil, potash fertilizers) to the countries of Southern Europe and from it they also receive means of production and consumer goods. An exception to this rule is the supply of Russian grain to the Middle East and North Africa.

              In the event of war with NATO, there will be no shipment of resources to Europe and receipt of goods from it. In the event of non-participation in the war, the Middle East and North Africa will receive grain through third countries such as Iran (if it also does not enter the war), but most likely they will be killed without our grain.

              So the sea trade route through the Black Sea straits and equally through the Baltic and Murmansk in case of war does not threaten us. For trade, we will have at least a waterway to Iran (hereinafter referred to as the countries of the Indian Ocean Basin) and railway to China (hereinafter referred to as the countries of the Pacific Basin).

              Although in wartime all sorts of Azerbaijanis, Turkmenists, Uzbeks and Pakistanis will immediately merge in brotherly love with Russia - we and China will urgently "ask" them - here you also have a land route to India.
              1. 3danimal
                3danimal April 4 2017 14: 28
                0
                in wartime, all sorts of azerbaijan, turkmenistan, uzbekistan and pakistan will immediately merge in brotherly love with russia

                The high probability of these events exists only in your imagination. Especially the mention of Pakistan smiled;) You still add Turkey - there are similarities, for example, both countries killed Soviet / Russian military aircraft.
                we and China will strongly “ask” them

                There are no "we" in the Russian Federation and China. NOT military allies, too small in economic comparison ...
        2. Butchcassidy
          Butchcassidy April 7 2016 12: 53
          0
          Quote: opus
          So consider 30% (for 2010, now there’s a larger share, mk + Crimea and + sanctions - flowed from the Baltic to the World Cup)) is it a lot or a little


          The question was rhetorical;) I'm talking about
          Quote: opus
          completely minor, minor troubles for a huge land power.
    5. Firstvanguard
      Firstvanguard April 4 2016 23: 32
      +1
      To go nuts! Oleg is back! And then armor yes anti-ship missiles, anti-ship missiles yes armor fool
      Keep it up, appreciated such articles and waited good
    6. bit.baytov
      bit.baytov April 7 2016 19: 52
      -1
      Ay, oh, oh, oh. How many scary pictures with American horror stories. Where are my diapers? However, if we recall the case of the American destroyer Donald Cook and the modest front-line reconnaissance aircraft Su-24 with the support of the electronic warfare system, it becomes clear that with a complex attack of an aircraft carrier group with weapons including electronic warfare equipment, the US aircraft carrier group will get a kayak , and with it dozens of aircraft :)
      Further on yours: "Briefly about the comparison of fleets - Russia is 30 years behind the United States"
      Our submarines did not just creep up to USNAVI, but also went right under the belly of these USNAVI, surfaced right in New York :))
      And on the stupidity: ".. sea-based air defense systems." Why do we need them. We have enough territory for ground-based air defense systems with a coverage radius far beyond the border.
      At the end. The real balance of power was shown by the events in Syria - they somehow immediately brought down arrogance from the "brave good guys." The Americans themselves know the value of their aging weapon (which is not all functional) - its strength lies in its large numbers.
      However, as Suvorov used to say: "You have to fight not by numbers, but by skill."
      1. retardu
        retardu April 8 2016 15: 28
        +1
        Stop posting bullshit about the cookie. It has long been written that these are fantasies of idiots
  2. Waltasar
    Waltasar April 4 2016 06: 42
    +8
    It is logical that the United States is shouting about strengthening the fleets of Russia and China, how else to justify military spending?
    1. Stirbjorn
      Stirbjorn April 4 2016 09: 15
      +3
      Quote: Waltasar
      It is logical that the United States is shouting about strengthening the fleets of Russia and China, how else to justify military spending?

      Rather, even a reduction in military spending, which they are trying to push in Congress
  3. Alceers
    Alceers April 4 2016 06: 57
    +9
    Twenty-five again. Still NG Kuznetsov spoke. What are the tasks of this and the fleet. Compare with each other sledgehammers and not a sledgehammer and a screwdriver. And our fleet and the Russian fleet are precisely in such a ratio
    1. DrVintorez
      DrVintorez April 4 2016 13: 00
      +1
      Actually, on this you can close the discussion =) the article compares spherical fleets in a vacuum. without regard to the intended purpose. this is how to compare the car formula 1 and UAZ469.
      1. mav1971
        mav1971 April 4 2016 15: 17
        -1
        Quote: DrVintorez
        Actually, on this you can close the discussion =) the article compares spherical fleets in a vacuum. without regard to the intended purpose. this is how to compare the car formula 1 and UAZ469.


        That the destroyer, the frigate, the cruiser, the aircraft carrier have a completely uniform application scheme, aka the intended purpose. Specifically for this type of ship.

        And if both we and they have race cars of the 1 and UAZ formulas, then it is possible and necessary to compare.

        But the one who uses them how, drives around the world, or defends in the bases. This is not a doctrine, it is just an opportunity.
    2. The comment was deleted.
    3. alex_tec
      alex_tec April 4 2016 13: 29
      +1
      Well, yes, a strange comparison, without taking into account how the fleet is inscribed in military doctrines, ours and Amers. In addition, America is a sea country, and we are continental. Hence the difference in the quantitative composition of the fleets.
  4. kugelblitz
    kugelblitz April 4 2016 07: 00
    +9
    Otherwise, why rush into a battle in which it is impossible to win?


    The Germans, not having so many battleships and not a single aircraft carrier, inflicted tremendous damage to the Allied fleets in WWII. Submarines and thus the notorious mosquito fleet. Well, aviation ....
    Since there are no resources for floating garages, which are a burden even for the Americans, you can limit yourself to a series of destroyers and light aircraft carriers-landing ships for oceanic expeditions. And the fight against adversaries should be decided by submarines and long-range missile-carrying aircraft. And a mosquito fleet to defend the coast. I now see this very concept in our fleet. In addition, the development of hypersonic guided warheads for the "Sarmat" is underway, of course they have guidance problems, nevertheless, they also have an option to combat enemy ships. And accordingly, we need a strong air defense system for our bases, as well as anti-aircraft missiles in nearby water areas.
    1. Santa Fe
      April 4 2016 07: 16
      +7
      Quote: kugelblitz
      The Germans, not having so many battleships and not a single aircraft carrier, inflicted tremendous damage to the Allied fleets in WWII. Submarines and thus the notorious mosquito fleet. Well, aviation ....

      You write as if you can continue to sit and victory will come into your own hands

      "Submarines"))))
      Germans had exactly 1170

      however, not enough for victory



      "Well, and aviation"
      and this, by the way, is the Luftwaffe - with its dive bombers, Vultures, guided bombs and the first anti-ship missiles, and even the Condor naval reconnaissance aircraft with side-looking radars


      Dornier-217 bomber with Hs.293 suspended anti-ship missile

      Quote: kugelblitz
      The Germans, not having so many battleships and not a single aircraft carrier,

      LOSED

      Otherwise, why rush into a battle in which it is impossible to win?
      1. kugelblitz
        kugelblitz April 4 2016 07: 33
        +6
        LOSED


        On the East Front. wassat

        But the submariners they had it was quite possible to get a second chance with boats of the XXI series. As for aviation, the Germans fought in fact on the converted passenger He-111 and front-line Yu-88. The rest of the little things, like the notorious Condor, again the passenger FW-200.
        Her battleships did not help the same Britain when the Germans bombed London. They even thought seriously about surrender. wassat
        1. Santa Fe
          April 4 2016 07: 59
          +2
          Quote: kugelblitz
          like the notorious Condor, again the passenger FW-200.

          FW-200 modifications C-8
          with radar Lorenz FuG 200 Hohentwiel

          the best naval scout of that era
          1. kugelblitz
            kugelblitz April 4 2016 08: 11
            +4
            Well so I'm talking about. wassat For example Fw.200C with Hs.293A missiles. ...



            Got development ...



            But this aircraft with a wooden wing and linen sheathing, as a result, drowned much more ships than the entire Regia Marina battleship fleet.

            1. Belimbai
              Belimbai April 4 2016 09: 42
              0
              And in the second photo, actually the Tu-16 ..... did not know that it was wooden)))))).
              1. kugelblitz
                kugelblitz April 4 2016 10: 49
                +1
                I’m talking about technology, because if you managed to drown right and left on such frank junk, then in the future everything became even worse for surface ships. Is it in vain that in the West they began to so feverishly saw the air defense cruisers? No, of course, because they knew perfectly well about the work being carried out in the USSR on the creation of missile carriers.
                The same can be said about nuclear submarines, and diesel of post-war projects. Even the "roaring cows" of the project 675 with a surface launch of the P-6 and not the most perfect target designation through the Tu-95RTs were in fact a very serious enemy.
        2. DimerVladimer
          DimerVladimer April 4 2016 10: 47
          +1
          Varshavyanka - roughly speaking, the deep modernization of German boats of the XXI series.
          Now the Germans are building boats with a power plant on hydrogen fuel cells - with a very low noise level - another technological level of submarines.
          1. aiw
            aiw April 4 2016 10: 51
            +4
            belay

            Then the boats of the XXI series are in turn a deep modernization of the boats of Dzhevetsky ... fellow
          2. The comment was deleted.
          3. kugelblitz
            kugelblitz April 4 2016 10: 56
            +4
            Generally in essence all post-war submarines come from the concept of boats with a Walter engine, where the underwater speed prevails over the surface and there is an optimization of the contours for these parameters. hi

            Here is the initial design of the boat, very reminiscent of modern, with some exceptions.

          4. rJIiOK
            rJIiOK April 5 2016 00: 13
            +1
            Armata tank is a deep modernization of the Tiger tank.
            These Russians can’t come up with anything.
      2. Serg65
        Serg65 April 4 2016 07: 50
        +1
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        LOSED

        what I'm sorry, why did you lose ????
        1. Santa Fe
          April 4 2016 08: 01
          +2
          Quote: Serg65
          I'm sorry, why did you lose?

          Battle of the Atlantic - because the Germans did not have enough ships
          1. Serg65
            Serg65 April 4 2016 08: 08
            +2
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            Battle of the Atlantic - because the Germans did not have enough ships

            good ..... but I thought it was a sinful thing that most of the German metal, so necessary for the construction of ships, the Russians in the form of metal from their fields were taken to "Vtorchermet"!
            1. Santa Fe
              April 4 2016 08: 17
              +1
              Quote: Serg65
              .a then I thought it a sinful thing that most of the German metal,

              Yes, but how does this cancel the fact: the lack of ships leads to defeat at sea

              The Germans had enough metal on the 10 heavy cruisers and LCs, and 1170 submarines
              but this was not enough
              1. Serg65
                Serg65 April 4 2016 09: 12
                +5
                Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                The Germans had enough metal on the 10 heavy cruisers and LCs, and 1170 submarines
                but this was not enough

                Oh, come on Oleg, after the destruction of the French and British troops on the continent, Britain for Germany became a cornered cat. If the American financial tycoons had not convinced Hitler to attack the USSR, where would your England be? Regarding "enough metal," Germany produced 53800 tanks and self-propelled guns throughout the war, on June 1, 1941, the Wehrmacht had 5639 vehicles, a total of 59439 vehicles, on February 1, 13620 tanks and self-propelled guns. 45819 vehicles with an average weight of 30-40 tons were lost. this is approximately 1 ml 600 tons of high quality metal. Submarine VII series has a displacement of 630 tons. 2540 submarines could be built from this metal !!!! And yet we have not taken into account the resources spent on ammunition, cars, artillery and aviation!
                1. Riv
                  Riv April 4 2016 10: 00
                  +2
                  And you do not confuse the mass of the ship with a displacement? So these are different things ...
                  1. KaPToC
                    KaPToC April 4 2016 18: 23
                    +1
                    Does a ship weigh as much as water? No?
              2. alexej123
                alexej123 April 4 2016 16: 32
                +2
                Oleg, well done. Whatever material - you read the comments - "Dog dump". And thanks for the many comments of experts, you read and learn new things.
          2. DimerVladimer
            DimerVladimer April 4 2016 10: 50
            +7
            Because the convoy system, ASDIK, equipping patrol aircraft with radars - all this led to defeat in the battle for the Atlantic. Snorkel and rubber coating of submarine cases appeared too late and could not turn the tide.
      3. Riv
        Riv April 4 2016 08: 48
        +1
        First: 1162 submarines, not 1170 (although the Germans exploited captured submarines as well).
        Secondly: not simultaneously at sea, it’s all built.
        Third: the characteristics of different projects differed like heaven and earth. Very few of the submarines could go to the Atlantic and especially to the Pacific Ocean. Those interested in the topic can google Doenitz’s memoirs and ask how few Germans actually brought England to the brink of defeat.
        Fourth: even a modern diesel submarine is something fundamentally different from the German U.

        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. Any destroyer for her is not a threat, but a target. Having shot torpedoes, she lays down on the ground and waits for the carrier, or goes to the 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 much cheaper than a corvette and can be put on dozens of them on duty).

        Moral: tonnage does NOT mean ANYTHING.
        1. Stirbjorn
          Stirbjorn April 4 2016 09: 21
          +4
          until March 43, German submarines were quite successful in bending down the Allied fleet. It's just that further the allies improved on the technical side + the conversion of dry cargo ships into escort aircraft carriers justified themselves. It was very difficult for submarines against aircraft. And the Germans had new, more advanced submarines only towards the very end of the war. I recommend reading the book of one of the few surviving commanders of German submarines Werner "Steel coffins"
          1. Riv
            Riv April 4 2016 09: 58
            +2
            Against radar on planes, submarines were very difficult. Surfacing is possible even at night, but here is the radar ... And snorkel was also detected at close range. At the same time, the boat going on diesel engines working through the snorkel is practically deaf. A destroyer is picking up, or a bomb is flying from an airplane ... have sailed.
            1. Alexey RA
              Alexey RA April 4 2016 11: 21
              +3
              Quote: Riv
              Against radar on planes, submarines were very difficult. Surfacing is possible even at night, but here is the radar ... And snorkel was also detected at close range. At the same time, the boat going on diesel engines working through the snorkel is practically deaf. A destroyer is picking up, or a bomb is flying from an airplane ... have sailed.

              The most ambush was that the presence of aircraft with radar in the cover of the convoy killed the old tactics of the submarine in the bud. Previously, submarines could, on the surface, quickly gather in the attack area (along the course of the KO) or overtake the KO on the surface for the next attack. That is, it was necessary to dive only in the immediate vicinity of the KOH. With the advent of long-range PLO and AVE vehicles, it became dangerous to remain on the surface already within a radius of 50-100 miles from the KON: either the four-engined engine will drop a series of bombs, or the sweet couple "Wildcat-Avenger" will first comb the deck with machine guns and missiles, and then add PLAB on submersible submarine. And when the FIDO homing submarine appeared in service with the aircraft ...
          2. Vitwin
            Vitwin April 4 2016 09: 58
            +3
            Quote: Stirbjorn
            until March 43rd, German submarines quite successfully bent the Allied fleet.

            + factor of "Enigma" hunting for wolf packs went much more successfully.
            An article plus, you won’t grumble, but this is the harsh truth of being And although now they will shower me with slippers - Russia was not once a great sea power, but from this greatness it’s not a feint, no less, just different goals, different tasks, and it seems to me at the top that they understand and keep within reasonable sufficiency, painfully expensive "toy" - the fleet.
          3. The comment was deleted.
          4. DimerVladimer
            DimerVladimer April 4 2016 10: 53
            +2
            Quote: Stirbjorn
            I recommend reading the book of one of the few surviving commanders of German submarines Werner "Steel coffins"


            Werner - this is the applied side, if you understand the strategy - it’s better to read Doenitz right away.
    2. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA April 4 2016 11: 32
      +3
      Quote: kugelblitz
      The Germans, not having so many battleships and not a single aircraft carrier, inflicted tremendous damage to the Allied fleets in WWII. Submarines and thus the notorious mosquito fleet. Well, aviation ....

      Yeah ... and this series of victories led the German fleet to defeat in the battle for the Atlantic. smile
      The submarine Kriegsmarine, even in the most fruitful years, were able to reduce the tonnage of the British merchant fleet by as much as 5%, and only in the second half of 1942. And in 1943 everything became extremely sad for the Germans: firstly, the program of building ships of the "Liberty" type began to work at full capacity , and, secondly, there was a qualitative leap in ASW in the Atlantic: with the advent of AVE, the radius of the zone dangerous for submarines around the convoys increased tenfold, and due to the saturation of the coastal ASW with long-range vehicles and the expansion of the airfield network, it became possible to cover most of the main routes of the KO on all their length.

      It is extremely difficult on a submarine to fight an adversary who acts not in depth, not on the surface, but in the air.
      1. kugelblitz
        kugelblitz April 4 2016 12: 12
        +1
        Well, the Germans found their answer to this in the form of boats of the XXI series, with high speed and relatively long range, in addition equipped with active and passive sonars. As had homing torpedoes.
        The fact that homing missiles, as well as long-range bombers, did not even have time to bring to the test, this does not mean its futility. Moreover, guided bombs and missiles with operator control managed to sink a certain amount. What is the sinking (so beloved by the author of an article such as surface ships) of the battleship Roma bomb Fritz X. wassat
        1. Alexey RA
          Alexey RA April 4 2016 15: 16
          +3
          Quote: kugelblitz
          Well, the Germans found their answer to this in the form of boats of the XXI series, with high speed and relatively long range, in addition equipped with active and passive sonars.

          The problem is that by this time the Allied PLO began right at the Kriegsmarine bases. Remember the finale of Das Boot? wink
          But an Iba raid is just flowers. Berries (weighing 6 tons) began when the 617th squadron was connected to the fight against submarine bases. In fact, in 1944 the breakthrough of PLO for the Germans began even at the stage of preparation for the campaign. smile
          Quote: kugelblitz
          The fact that homing missiles, as well as long-range bombers, did not even have time to bring to the test, this does not mean its futility. Moreover, guided bombs and missiles with operator control managed to sink a certain amount. What is the sinking (so beloved by the author of an article such as surface ships) of the battleship Roma bomb Fritz X.

          The Germans worked on "Roma" practically in the field conditions. There are no fighters, it does not fire for air defense, the ship does not maneuver.
          Besides, apart from “Roma” there was also “Worspeight”, which withstood 1 direct hit and 1 near miss.

          Well, do not forget that the Allies quickly found a way to combat UAB / UR with radio control, having begun to equip their ships with electronic warfare systems.
          1. kugelblitz
            kugelblitz April 4 2016 16: 04
            0
            Quote: Alexey RA
            The Allies quickly found a way to combat UAB / UR with radio control, having begun to equip their ships with electronic warfare systems.


            I remember this moment, the Germans began to use wires for control for efficiency. And even television guidance systems in their infancy were available.

            1. Alexey RA
              Alexey RA April 4 2016 19: 05
              0
              Quote: kugelblitz
              I remember this moment, the Germans began to use wires for control for efficiency. And even television guidance systems in their infancy were available.

              Toad is cunning
              But a little screw khrushch
              A lot trickier than her ..

              The wired system is vulnerable to anti-aircraft fire. And against the early TV systems, the Allies could well use the illumination of combat searchlights. smile
  5. devytovskiy
    devytovskiy April 4 2016 07: 16
    -3
    it makes no sense to create a huge fleet with a huge nuclear potential and their delivery vehicles, everything will be turned to ashes !!!
    1. alex-712
      alex-712 April 4 2016 07: 40
      +2
      You're finally wrong, with your presence alone you can catch fear, you just think that the Americans would rub in the Black Sea? they think there is no means of nuclear weapons delivery.
      1. devytovskiy
        devytovskiy April 4 2016 11: 49
        +3
        and what am I wrong about, we need an army and navy, but not of enormous size, but the most modern and mobile are Putin’s words, or are you going to arrange like striped expansion? So we don’t actually do this — our land is enough! !!
    2. Lopatov
      Lopatov April 4 2016 12: 08
      +4
      Here you are thrown cons fellow

      In fact, you are right. The question is not in absolute numbers, the question is in accordance with the number of tasks assigned to the fleet by the country.

      At the moment, because of the economy, Russia cannot afford any special "wishes". In fact, the main defender of our country is the nuclear triad. And regardless of the economy and politics, they ALWAYS received priority funding. The rest received, receive, and, I'm afraid, will receive resources for a long time on a leftover basis.

      But.
      The growth of the economy causes the growth of political "weight". And both of these factors, both the economy and "weight", cause by their growth the need to expand tasks (as is happening now with the Chinese).
      And if there are more tasks, then a different number of personnel is needed, including that of the fleet.
  6. Alex_59
    Alex_59 April 4 2016 07: 25
    +12
    I did not put the pros and cons. Essentially true, but again, these praises of the American people are annoying (sorry, but I'm still Russian). As always, the quality of the material in my understanding is low, many words, few numbers, many epithets, little analysis. The whole essence of the article is expressed by the phrase:
    On the positive side, it is necessary to recognize that the current situation is not new and has its own logical explanation of its geographical nature. The history of the Anglo-Saxons is inextricably linked with the sea. Everything is completely different with us.
    It is from this that we must proceed. And it is necessary to compare not the fleet of the Russian Federation and the USA, but the Russian Federation and NATO at least. And ideally, it is necessary to compare defense potentials in specific strategic conditions. The US Navy may be cool, but is not capable of causing unacceptable damage to Russia as a state in principle. Those who wish to impose their will on the Russians, we invite on foot on the ground, and this is a completely different scenario.


    Talking about smaller units - IAC and RTOs does not make sense.
    But this is in vain. RTOs are different. 1234 can drown a cruiser or even mash Avik. With some luck of course.

    In reality, everything is somewhat different than on the beautiful trailer of the Russian fleet. The success of domestic shipbuilders, expectedly, turned out to be much more modest.
    Of course more modest. They torn the country to pieces, then they killed 10 for years, survived the civil war, and all this in our difficult climate, and we still know how to build nuclear submarines, despite all the possible wrecking by the traitor rulers. Is this not a miracle? The Americans would have thrown their hooves away in such conditions, and not built nuclear powered ships.
    1. Santa Fe
      April 4 2016 07: 50
      +5
      Quote: Alex_59
      many words, few numbers, many epithets, little analysis.

      There is nothing to analyze there
      common sense is enough to estimate the extent

      Here is a simple fact for you, as part of the Russian Navy, there is only a 1 ship with a long-range (zonal) air defense system (with a firing range of 100 + km). The Yankees - 85
      these are the numbers, better words and epithets
      Quote: Alex_59
      1234 can drown a cruiser


      Libyan MRK Ein Mara (project 1234) after the battle with the cruiser Yorktown
      RTO combat stability tends to zero: as soon as they are discovered - they are dead
      Quote: Alex_59
      then 10 years ruined

      Rob 25 years, of which the last 15 in a particularly large size
      1. Serg65
        Serg65 April 4 2016 07: 56
        +1
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        Rob 25 years, of which the last 15 in a particularly large size

        what Are you talking about Ukraine so beloved by you ???
      2. Alex_59
        Alex_59 April 4 2016 08: 12
        +9
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        Here's a simple fact for you, as part of the Russian Navy, only 1 is a ship with a long-range (zonal) air defense system
        Firstly - well, figs with him. Secondly - what kind of ship is this so lonely?
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        Libyan MRK Ein Mara (project 1234) after the battle with the cruiser Yorktown

        The Libyan MRK is equipped with a stripped-down export version of the Rangotzt-E radar instead of the Titianite radar, it was destroyed after the radar was turned on, unmasking itself with characteristic radiation, although the speed was disguised as a seiner. Before switching to mode "A", it approached without being detected. Russian RTOs, camouflaged by the coast and the speed, may well, in the "P" or "U" mode, shoot at the cruiser at the full range of the anti-ship missile system and quietly dump. You must know how to use a weapon. Libyans don't grow their hands from there.
        1. Santa Fe
          April 4 2016 08: 24
          -4
          Quote: Alex_59
          Secondly - what kind of ship is this so lonely?

          Peter
          Quote: Alex_59
          Russian MRK disguised by the coast and the speed of the course may well, in the "P" or "U" mode, shoot at the cruiser at the full range of the anti-ship missile system and quietly dump

          Only the cruiser can still fight back, like the Wainwright during the battle with the Iranian Joshan
          and MRK - no
          1. Alex_59
            Alex_59 April 4 2016 08: 34
            +5
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            Only the cruiser can still fight back

            Of course. No one equates an RTO to a cruiser, an RTO is a coastal weapon and needs camouflage and cover. But they should not be completely discounted.
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            Peter

            Why only Peter? Moscow, Ustinov, Peter, Varyag, Lazarev. It turns out five pieces. Are you distorting the facts again?
            1. Santa Fe
              April 4 2016 08: 39
              -4
              Quote: Alex_59
              RTOs are coastal weapons and need camouflage and cover

              with the same success you can shoot from the shore
              even better camouflage and higher mobility

              Quote: Alex_59
              Why only Peter?

              Because only its SLAs provide shooting at 100 + km

              4P48 Phased Array
              1. Alex_59
                Alex_59 April 4 2016 08: 49
                +7
                Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                Because only its SLAs provide shooting at 100 + km
                And 90 km is no longer a collective air defense? Junk comes out, it’s necessary to junk. smile
                Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                with the same success you can shoot from the shore
                even better camouflage and higher mobility

                Not only possible, but necessary. Cheaper and more efficient. In general, I believe that the Russian Navy should mainly consist of coastal troops, aircraft and submarines. Surface ships are mainly needed type 21631 and 22160. Surface ships of the ocean zone - no more than 20 pieces of destroyers and frigates, of which one aircraft carrier can be. This is to show the flag and help the Syrians.
                1. Santa Fe
                  April 4 2016 09: 03
                  -3
                  Quote: Alex_59
                  And 90 km is no longer a collective air defense?

                  modern media is unlikely to reach

                  you can also forget about intercepting a satellite or ballistic missile - something that all foreign destroyers - Saxony, Daringi, Aegis - can do

                  unrecoverable tech. disadvantages of ZR41 - limited angles of fire, "farm" BIUS - where the air defense systems receive only the primary control center and then work independently

                  with such baggage it’s hard to compete with Aegis and PAAMS, between them lies 30 years
                  Quote: Alex_59
                  and help the Syrians.

                  And I think that they do not need help
                  these degenerates for 40 years could not achieve order in themselves. And then they happily threw themselves into the arms of their "enemies" - the participation of Hafez Assad in the war with Iraq on the US side (1991), which made even the US surprised
                  1. Alex_59
                    Alex_59 April 4 2016 09: 19
                    +4
                    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                    And I think that they do not need help

                    I already understood that. In 90, it was good, there was no need to help the Syrians, it was necessary to return Yeltsin who, according to your ideas, did not rob our Motherland so much. I am glad that your opinion is marginal.
                    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                    modern media is unlikely to reach

                    No one argues that the United States is stronger. For Russia, the fleet has never been the main weapon, unlike the United States. We lost in the cold war, the gap is serious. These are obvious things. Who are you arguing with? With propaganda? This is stupid. Tears smear chtoli now?
                    1. Santa Fe
                      April 4 2016 10: 01
                      -5
                      Quote: Alex_59
                      Duck no one argues that the US is stronger

                      No, you argued why Moscow’s air defense cannot be compared with Aegis
                      because they are not equal
                      Quote: Alex_59
                      it is necessary to return Yeltsin who, according to your concepts, did not rob our country so much

                      why return it. He already exists perfectly in the form of modern "elites"
                      Quote: Alex_59
                      90 was good

                      Objectively - the level of combat capability of the army was higher

                      For the first time, the Tu-22M3 from the North Sea Kirkenes Red Banner Air Division carried out missile launches in the Barents Sea during the West-99 command and staff exercises in northern Russia. Striking along with the missile ships of the fleet, on 24-26 on June 1999, the TU-22M3 “destroyed” the detachment of covering enemy ships at a distance of 100 km, and the “main target” - from 300 km. In September of that year, at the Pacific Fleet, the Tu-22М3 detachment conducted missile firing at targets with four X-22.

                      Now, one can only dream of such an intensity of training firing of anti-ship missiles
                      1. Alex_59
                        Alex_59 April 4 2016 10: 07
                        +6
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        Objectively - the level of combat capability of the army was higher

                        Lying. I know for myself, you are our sofa.
                      2. Santa Fe
                        April 4 2016 10: 10
                        -8
                        Quote: Alex_59
                        Lying. I know for myself

                        So no need for you
                        It is necessary for the intensity of naval exercises

                        When was the last time the X-22 was shot?
                      3. Alex_59
                        Alex_59 April 4 2016 10: 18
                        +3
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        So no need for you
                        I think that it is necessary for me, although I’m something like that, a jacket, a trifle. It is necessary for every pilot and sailor. You would have to run them into the smoking room with your opinion, oh, you wouldn’t get off with matyuki, it would come to physical assault. I then communicate with them, I know. smile
                      4. Lopatov
                        Lopatov April 4 2016 11: 36
                        +2
                        "Chickpea is not so simple" (c)

                        I don’t know about the pilots and sailors, but the groundmen had the thesis “in the 90s there was no combat training, and only Shoigu put things in order” causes at least a smile.
                      5. Alex_59
                        Alex_59 April 4 2016 12: 10
                        +3
                        Quote: Spade
                        I don’t know about the pilots and sailors, but the groundmen had the thesis “in the 90s there was no combat training, and only Shoigu put things in order” causes at least a smile.

                        It’s different for everyone. I can say for sure that in 90 our local IAP did not fly at all. And in recent years, something incredible has been going on, they are not giving sleep. Already this year alone, two exercises involving A-50. IL-78 became a regular visitor, although I had never seen it before 2010, as well as A-50. This is all I saw and see with my own eyes.

                        And in general, from the genocide that Yeltsin and Gorbi staged, I have very specific victims in the family. So this nonsense about what is now even worse than in 90 will never work.
                      6. mav1971
                        mav1971 April 4 2016 15: 30
                        0
                        Quote: Alex_59

                        It’s different for everyone. I can say for sure that in 90 our local IAP did not fly at all. And in recent years, something incredible has been going on, they are not giving sleep. Already this year alone, two exercises involving A-50. IL-78 became a regular visitor, although I had never seen it before 2010, as well as A-50. This is all I saw and see with my own eyes.


                        Just a war on the nose. So they drive in the tail and mane.
                        In 90, the threat of war was far how far ...
                        Having analyzed the situation with government orders, rearmament programs, and analytic performances (back in the 2005-2010 years), the war was potentially predicted by the 2020 year.
                      7. Alex_59
                        Alex_59 April 4 2016 15: 51
                        +2
                        Quote: mav1971
                        Just a war on the nose.

                        Well, this process did not start yesterday. At the end of 00's. And it smoothly went on growing, and the last 5 years are approximately at the same level. Although of course the latest teachings are clearly associated with fears of war.
                      8. Lopatov
                        Lopatov April 4 2016 19: 04
                        +1
                        Quote: mav1971
                        In 90, the threat of war was far how far ...

                        Yeah ...
                        End of summer 1998. Vladikavkaz, "the village of Holtsman" (VG "Vesna"), the location of the ORB and OTB of the 19th Voronezh-Shumlinskaya motorized rifle. Platz. Gathering of young lieutenants ...
                        "..In the next few years, a new war in Chechnya awaits you ..."

                        There’s someone like that. This may not have been a threat to the fleet.
                  2. Dam
                    Dam April 5 2016 17: 29
                    0
                    It doesn’t cause me. Before Putin arrived, combat training was almost absent from the ground forces. After the start of the 2nd Chechen situation began to change.
              2. Alex_59
                Alex_59 April 4 2016 21: 19
                0
                Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                When was the last time the X-22 was shot?

                About X-22. I do not know when and how often the X-22 is fired. But I know that the Tu-22M chained to the ground at the end of the 90's and the beginning of the zero are in a very sad state, and from the whole fleet there are only 40 machines in constant operation. Duck, they periodically fly with the product. I don’t know whether they shoot or not, but fly - fly. Proof:
                February 2016: http://russianplanes.net/id182975
                Autumn 2015: http://russianplanes.net/id180919
                September 2015: http://russianplanes.net/id176668
                2014 year: http://russianplanes.net/id176242
                Spring 2015: http://russianplanes.net/id162933
                2014 year: http://russianplanes.net/id159173
              3. Santa Fe
                April 5 2016 05: 09
                0
                Quote: Alex_59
                Duck, they periodically fly with the product. I don’t know whether they shoot or not,

                in Soviet times, they always flew with unfilled rockets. Refuel only when firing. this is too dangerous an operation for daily service

                so it became interesting to me - when they last shot. there is no information about the participation of the Carcasses in the naval exercises in recent years. Maritime missile aircraft abolished emnip in 2010

                90 was shot regularly
        2. aiw
          aiw April 4 2016 11: 16
          +2
          > Objectively - the level of the army's combat capability was higher

          Objectively, no. Compare the Chechen wars, 08.08.08 and Syria.
        3. Lopatov
          Lopatov April 4 2016 11: 40
          +2
          Quote: aiw
          Compare the Chechen wars, 08.08.08 and Syria.

          And what can be compared there?

          Here, for example, in the second Chechen unit, 19 MSDs have never been ambushed on a march. Thanks to its proper organization.
          But in August 2008, this happened at least twice.

          What can it talk about?
        4. aiw
          aiw April 4 2016 11: 50
          0
          > And what can be compared there?

          Losses and performance.

          The ambush example is not entirely correct - all the same, 08.08 everything was developing much more dynamically than in Chechnya.

          Do you really think that the level of combat readiness of the Army has fallen since the Chechen wars? What about all sorts of large-scale exercises over the past few years? I'm not talking about the reviews of the military themselves about the times of Chechnya and the current ...
        5. Lopatov
          Lopatov April 4 2016 12: 27
          +3
          Quote: aiw
          Do you really think that the level of combat readiness of the Army has fallen since the Chechen wars?

          Yes. Specifically, according to 19 MSD, the problem is that the Soviet officers left.

          Quote: aiw
          What about all sorts of large-scale exercises over the past few years?

          Uh ... Don’t confuse. If the media begins to report on each company tactical training, this does not mean that there are more of them.
          Since then, only one thing has changed - more foolishness, more window dressing, more chaos.

          If, for example, there used to be a field exit of artillery, which traditionally ended with divisional tactical exercises with live firing, now it can be "diluted" with the preparation and holding of a show in the style of "tank biathlon" a dozen shells at a nearby training ground for a few seconds in a news clip.

          A classmate last year complained: because of the "sudden exercises" they could not conduct live firing of officers. Although under the same Yeltsin it was a saint, "after the bath, steal, but drink." I had to carry out ersatz using AGS and plywood models.
  • Yak-3P
    Yak-3P April 4 2016 13: 24
    0
    You're right!! after all, defense is the essence of our MO .. and what is not enough, but can also cause "unacceptable damage" ... to demonstrate the flag, I also count 1 fleet of 20 units, but such that 3 pick them up .. but 36 ICBMs per year received if desired even 2- in the fleet area angry
  • kote119
    kote119 April 4 2016 09: 21
    +1
    Lazarev has not built in
  • Santa Fe
    April 4 2016 08: 47
    -3
    Quote: Alex_59
    Radar "Titianite", was destroyed after turning on the radar, unmasking itself with characteristic radiation, although the speed was disguised as a seiner. Before switching to mode "A", it approached without being detected.

    In other words, before switching to active mode

    This is a debate about overseas shipborne cm-band radars. Which does not exist. What you write about is passive mode, direction finding. In active mode, nothing can be seen beyond the horizon.
    1. Alex_59
      Alex_59 April 4 2016 09: 05
      +4
      Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
      In other words, before switching to active mode.
      Maybe I didn't put it exactly, my fault. The Libyan MRK has no radar, there is a Rangout radar. They walked in radio silence, with the radar turned off. As soon as they turned on the radar, they were immediately classified and destroyed. The Libyan RTOs do not have passive target designation devices, it is not even the Libyans' fault, they simply did not sell such a unique item as Titanite.

      Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
      What you write about is passive mode, direction finding.
      And the active mode is radio direction finding, only the direction finding is not the primary radiated signal, but the echo signal reflected from the object. Regarding direct reflection interference, there are many methods and mathematical algorithms for rejecting them. Otherwise, no radar would have worked at all if it had not been able to distinguish the true echo from the interfering noise.
      1. Santa Fe
        April 4 2016 09: 18
        -2
        Quote: Alex_59
        The Libyan RTOs do not have passive target designation devices, it is not even the Libyans' fault, they simply did not sell such a unique item as Titanite.

        And to the point - the Iranians even sat down to shoot at the Wainwright. Only the cruiser, unlike the MRK, has air defense and a set of electronic warfare equipment

        Joshan Corvette, who had the most serious intentions, approached Compound A. At the suggestion of stalling the engines and leaving the ship, the Iranian sailors launched the RCC cruiser. "Simpson" responded with two RIM-66E missiles, which fell into the superstructure of the Iranian corvette. Following this, another anti-aircraft RIM-67 flew into Joshan from the Wainwright cruiser.
        Quote: Alex_59
        And the active mode is the direction finding

        at the same time you will tell why the overseas radar Laguna has a length of a kilometer
        to control the 200-km economic zone

        Probably its creators were not as smart as the creators of "Titanite")))
        1. Alex_59
          Alex_59 April 4 2016 09: 26
          +1
          Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
          Only the cruiser, unlike the RTOs, has air defense and a set of electronic warfare

          MRK also has a set of electronic warfare equipment.
          Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
          at the same time you will tell why the overseas radar Laguna has a length of a kilometer

          This is you tell. Be kind. I dont know. smile
          1. Santa Fe
            April 4 2016 09: 45
            +1
            Quote: Alex_59
            MRK also has a set of electronic warfare equipment.

            They have nothing like EW cruisers

            can suppress interference at the same time up to 80 radar. At the same time, an optimized type of interference is sent to each object of counteraction, providing maximum suppression efficiency. The electronic warfare system AN / SLQ (V) 3 can operate in the mode of creating false targets, masking and leading away in range and angle of interference. This modification of the system provides, along with the semi-automatic mode for setting passive interference, also a semi-automatic or automatic mode for setting active interference. The total interference power level can vary from a few kW to 1 MW.

            Such a system is more expensive than the entire RTO


            The lagoon is a kilometer long, because it’s a real-world model of over-the-horizon radar, and not a fabulous ship’s centimeter radar.

            Works in the range of meter waves, due to surface diffraction
            details - http://www.niidar.ru/item90/
            1. Alex_59
              Alex_59 April 4 2016 09: 56
              +5
              Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
              They have nothing like EW cruisers

              Electronic warfare is a broad concept. EW is also the Titanit radar, if that. Reconnaissance and direction finding of radiation is also electronic warfare. Passive jamming is also electronic warfare. So the MRK has electronic warfare, but it is certainly not as developed as that of the cruiser, and once again you have to remind you that you don't need to prove that the cruiser is a more advanced weapon than the MRK.
              Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
              The lagoon is a kilometer long, because a real-world model of over-the-horizon radar

              And "Titanit" has dimensions of a couple of meters, because a real-life example of an over-the-horizon radar. The proof is absolutely symmetrical to yours and try to argue now that I have not proved the over-horizon capabilities of Titanite to you. smile
              1. Santa Fe
                April 4 2016 10: 06
                -5
                Quote: Alex_59
                EW is a broad concept.

                On cruisers is a system with the specified characteristics

                can suppress interference at the same time up to 80 radar. At the same time, an optimized type of interference is sent to each object of counteraction, providing maximum suppression efficiency. The electronic warfare system AN / SLQ (V) 3 can operate in the mode of creating false targets, masking and leading away in range and angle of interference. This modification of the system provides, along with the semi-automatic mode for setting passive interference, also a semi-automatic or automatic mode for setting active interference. The total interference power level can vary from a few kW to 1 MW.

                On the MRK a priori there is nothing like it
                Quote: Alex_59
                And "Titanit" has dimensions of a couple of meters, because a real-life example of an over-the-horizon radar.

                Then you have to explain the difference in their sizes
                1. Alex_59
                  Alex_59 April 4 2016 10: 10
                  +5
                  Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                  Then you have to explain the difference in their sizes
                  To university. 5 years. There they will explain 100%. I could, but it's long and useless. smile
                  I’ll stick the picture better, as you like.
                2. Santa Fe
                  April 4 2016 10: 23
                  -7
                  Quote: Alex_59
                  I could, but it's long and useless

                  If you could, you have long answered
                  and you only make up fables, and when it comes to specifics - into the bushes

                  One explanation - the systems described by you do not exist. For ZGRLS huge sizes and absolutely other range are required. If you thought, you immediately realized that your reasoning is at variance with reality
                  Quote: Alex_59
                  I’ll stick a better picture

                  That is, nevertheless, superrefraction)))
                3. aiw
                  aiw April 4 2016 10: 30
                  +1
                  > ZGRLS requires huge dimensions and a completely different range.

                  Sizes are determined by the range.

                  > That is, after all, super-refraction)))

                  Does the AN / SLQ (V) 3 electronic warfare system lead away in elevation, also due to over-refraction? wassat
                4. The comment was deleted.
                5. Alex_59
                  Alex_59 April 4 2016 10: 31
                  +5
                  Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                  That is, nevertheless, superrefraction)))
                  Yeah, count it, she is the most! smile And also - the earth is round, they recently found out a couple of centuries ago. This is just in case if you missed it at school. laughing
                  http://concern-agat.ru/produktsiya/radiolokatsiya/korabelnyj-radiolokatsionnyj-k
                  ompleks-mineral-me

                  Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                  If you could, you have long answered
                  What, the whole university course designed for 5 years you here to throw out? repeat Nah, I'm lazy, sorry. You need - and you are looking for, I already ate too much of this radio equipment to nausea.
                6. Santa Fe
                  April 4 2016 10: 51
                  -7
                  Quote: Alex_59
                  Yeah, count it, she is the most!

                  Why so happy, as if I learned a new word
                  Quote: Alex_59
                  What, the whole university course designed for 5 years you here to throw out?

                  Usually you are happy to rush to explain, if you know at least something on a chosen topic

                  The whole course is not necessary. At least answer why the creators of the Lagoon use meter waves, if super refraction is possible)) it’s easier and more compact in 1000 times
                7. Alex_59
                  Alex_59 April 4 2016 11: 11
                  +5
                  Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                  Why so happy, as if I learned a new word
                  Yes, I am always cheerful and happy with life. And I wrote this word to you a long time ago. And about the waveguides too. smile
                  Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                  Usually you are happy to rush to explain if you know at least something on this issue.

                  Yeah, I'm not indifferent and my sense of justice is heightened. You can hesitate, it is easy to drag me into a polemic, there is such a sin. I am naive. smile
                  Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                  At least answer why the creators of the Lagoon use meter waves

                  I do not know. I can assume that the detection range for such radars is several times longer, for a similar Wave (GP-120) - 3000 km. And the accuracy of determining goal coordinates is many times lower, and they can hardly classify a goal. Their task is simply to determine the fact of the presence of a certain object on a section of the sea, for this it is not necessary to determine the size of the target, its speed, course, etc. Plus - the lack of overall restrictions as on ships. There may be energy issues - short waves decay faster and require greater power at a comparable range. Remember the first sotiks - NMT-450 took many times farther than GSM-900, and even more so 1800.
                8. Santa Fe
                  April 5 2016 05: 31
                  -1
                  Well done, I thought you won’t answer, referring to the institute
                  Quote: Alex_59
                  I can assume that the detection range of such radars is several times greater

                  The assumption is wrong

                  The lagoon operates in the decameter wavelength range, in the observation zone from 15 to 250 km
                  Quote: Alex_59
                  . And the accuracy of determining goal coordinates is many times lower, and they can hardly classify a goal.

                  In addition to large dimensions, they also have less accuracy
                  perfectly

                  Lagoon: automatic detection and measurement of coordinates and motion parameters of detected ships and aircraft; as well as the transfer of information about the escorted facilities to external points of collection and processing of information for operational decisions. A radar can simultaneously accompany 50 surface and 10 airborne targets.
                  Quote: Alex_59
                  There may be energy issues - short waves decay faster and require greater power at a comparable range

                  1. HF longer than VHF
                  2. HF - decameter waves (Lagoon). VHF - centimeter / decimeter (Titanite)
                  3. Signal loss is inversely proportional to the wavelength

                  conclusion ... Losses of the "over-the-horizon centimeter ship radar" would be HIGHER !!!
                  Quote: Alex_59
                  at a similar Wave (GP-120) - 3000 km

                  If only I read before writing

                  The station uses two principles of over-the-horizon location - surface beam (diffractive surface propagation) in the near field and a spatial beam (reflected from the ionosphere) in the far zone.

                  3000 a completely different mode and other features

                  And this person with a smart look here broadcasts about the Titans and communication systems, no words
                9. Alex_59
                  Alex_59 April 5 2016 07: 00
                  +2
                  Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                  And this person with a smart look here broadcasts about the Titans and communication systems, no words

                  I am far from you, you are a genius, but I am a modest engineer. smile In fact, I wrote in the first line in my comment: I DON'T KNOW. And then there were assumptions. They may not be correct. But in your parallel reality, it seems impossible to make assumptions or make mistakes. Sarzu some kind of pathos - "no words"! And then he wrote a bunch of words, even with formulas. laughing They are such geniuses - and the incriminating evidence, and radio engineering, and ballistics, and the theory of shipbuilding know a little, yeah.

                  However, there are radars for overseas detection ships, I gave you a link to the website of the developer and seller of this equipment: http://concern-agat.ru/produktsiya/radiolokatsiya/korabelnyj-radiolokatsionnyj-k
                  ompleks-mineral-me
                  Answer you my question: does the developer lie about the performance characteristics of his products?
                10. Santa Fe
                  April 5 2016 08: 48
                  0
                  Quote: Alex_59
                  wrote a bunch of words, even with formulas

                  Is there a mistake in them?
                  if they are true - who cares who wrote them

                  And pathos is a constant mention of 5 years at the university, when in essence you know nothing
                  Quote: Alex_59
                  the first line I wrote: I DO NOT KNOW

                  That is, a modest engineer is not alarmed by the 1000-fold difference in the dimensions of the radar, which seems to perform the same task
                  Quote: Alex_59
                  Does the developer lie about the performance characteristics of his products?

                  No, you just misunderstood what is at stake

                  and since then you have been trying to prove an absurd thought. Try to answer a couple of simple questions:

                  1. How many miles does the radar range increase
                  compared to line of sight given positive
                  refraction of radio waves?

                  2. Radar range increases or decreases
                  with super refraction?

                  3. The seasons in which superrefraction appears?
                11. Alex_59
                  Alex_59 April 5 2016 09: 06
                  +1
                  Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                  Is there a mistake in them?

                  The error is not in them. The error is that these calculations are not enough.
                  Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                  And pathos is a constant mention of 5 years in the university
                  I have the right. smile
                  Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                  when essentially you know nothing
                  By heart all radio equipment? Of course I don’t know. What the hell do I need it for?

                  Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                  That is, a modest engineer is not alarmed by the 1000-fold difference in the dimensions of the radar, which seems to perform the same task
                  Not. Are you really worried about the size difference between the aircraft carrier and the missile boat, which seem to be performing the same task?

                  Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                  No, you just misunderstood what is at stake

                  I asked a simple question - does the developer LIES or DOES NOT LIE about the performance characteristics of his products? There are two answers - YES or NO. The answer is clear, if not difficult. smile
                12. Santa Fe
                  April 5 2016 09: 15
                  0
                  Quote: Alex_59
                  By heart all radio equipment? Of course I don’t know. What the hell do I need it for?

                  These are its basics, written in the first chapter of the textbook
                  intuitive to any ham radio

                  but you even managed to screw them up
                  Quote: Alex_59
                  the difference in size between the aircraft carrier and the missile boat, seemingly performing the same task?

                  As there was: "Vasya is not deaf, he is crazy"
                  Quote: Alex_59
                  There are two answers - YES or NO.

                  They clearly answered you - no

                  mistake - in your interpretation of the phenomenon of superrefraction
                  To understand, answer three questions:

                  1. How many miles does the radar range increase
                  compared to line of sight, taking into account the positive refraction of radio waves?

                  2. Radar range increases or decreases
                  with super refraction?

                  3. The seasons in which superrefraction appears?
                13. Alex_59
                  Alex_59 April 5 2016 09: 33
                  0
                  Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                  They clearly answered you - no

                  Thank you. smile Okay, everybody calls me names here, I'm not offended, even though the developers were spared. smile
                  To me, in principle, the rest is already on the drum, the main thing is that you finally recognized that shipborne radars with over-the-horizon target detection exist !!! Hooray!!! good

                  Well, let's still hang out, so for fun:
                  Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                  1. How many miles does the range of the radar increase compared to line of sight, taking into account the positive refraction of radio waves?

                  The question is absolutely stupid. Specific data are needed: antenna type, radiated power, directivity, wavelength, target RCS, etc. And what is "positive" refraction? Is there a "negative" one?
                  Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                  2. Radar range increases or decreases
                  with super refraction?

                  I didn't understand the question. The phenomenon of super-refraction is not used to calculate the limiting detection ranges in the traditional sense of "line of sight". If we are talking about whether the radar line-of-sight range will be the same as with super-refraction, then no, it will not, the range with super-refraction will drop.
                  Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                  3. The seasons in which superrefraction appears?

                  I don’t know for sure whether it depends on the wavelength or atmospheric conditions. I met an opinion on the Internet with reference to the developers that in the south for the frequencies characteristic of our RLCs the phenomenon of super-refraction is constant, in the north in winter it seems that it doesn’t happen in summer, according to the situation. I don’t know anymore, I won’t lie.
                14. Santa Fe
                  April 5 2016 10: 05
                  0
                  Quote: Alex_59
                  The question is not understood

                  What is incomprehensible in this is that there is a positive superrefraction (suddenly the detection range increases to hundreds of kilometers). And there is a negative one - when the radius of curvature of the wave path is greater than the radius of the Earth. radar range is reduced
                  Quote: Alex_59
                  The question is absolutely stupid

                  Tell the authors of the textbook SHIP RADAR. SHIPBAR RADAR SYSTEMS AND SARP
                  Quote: Alex_59
                  in the south for the frequencies characteristic of our radar, the phenomenon of superrefraction is constantly

                  Positive refraction is not common even in the tropics. And in the north it is generally more negative, fortunately also not often

                  And if you can take advantage of this effect two to three times a year, then this will be a good result. Hope with this fickle and unpredictable atm. use phenomena to constantly monitor the target - it is useless

                  So there is no error about the 250 km of Titanite, but it is clearly indicated there - with over-refraction. What are you stubbornly trying not to notice, passing the Titanite as a superradar. For continuous observation at 200 km, you need a Lagoon with a kilometer antenna and the effect of wave diffraction
                15. Alex_59
                  Alex_59 April 5 2016 10: 26
                  0
                  Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                  What is incomprehensible in this is that there is a positive superrefraction (suddenly the detection range increases to hundreds of kilometers). And there is a negative one - when the radius of curvature of the wave path is greater than the radius of the Earth. radar range is reduced

                  I absolutely did not understand anything in this text. Refraction is refraction. When you see your sweet physiognomy in the mirror, it is refraction. You can certainly frolic, and assume that the refraction of its reflection is positive before the party, and negative on the morning after it. laughing Maybe the angle of reflection you mean? It can be positive or negative.
                  Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                  Tell the authors of the textbook SHIP RADAR. SHIPBAR RADAR SYSTEMS AND SARP

                  I don't understand anything. You ask "how many miles" will the range increase ... How many miles relative to what? How many miles were BEFORE OVERFRACTING? Let me ask you a similar question: how many millimeters will the thickness of the armor grow if it is increased by 10%?
                  Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                  Positive refraction is not common even in the tropics.

                  Refraction of what? What frequencies? What power is emitted? You do not assume that your CIVIL SHIP Handbook does not describe everything. And the developers know a little more than your directory, and you and I? For example, can they select the technical parameters of the radar in such a way that over-refraction occurs more often than you think? For example, I have no doubt, because those frequency ranges for communication that go to the citizen are many times worse than the military. Moreover, civilians are doing worse on purpose.
                  Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                  So there is no error about the 250 km of Titanite, but it is clearly indicated there - with over-refraction. What are you stubbornly trying not to notice, passing the Titanite as a superradar.
                  No, I have NEVER EVER, ever written that Titanite SUPERRADAR. I do not need to ascribe their delusional fantasies. You wrote - there are no such radars. I proved that they exist. Yes, with limitations, not always and not everywhere, but the fact itself exists. Perhaps we’ll finish this conversation. hi
  • aiw
    aiw April 4 2016 10: 15
    +2
    > Then you have to explain the difference in their size

    lambda / D fool

    > AN / SLQ (V) 3 electronic warfare system can operate in the mode of creating decoys, masking and diverting in range and a corner interference.

    If we are talking about azimuth, then it looks much more fantastic than ZGRLS in the see range. If only they use reflection from the shores ...

    If we are talking about elevation, this only confirms the possibility of creating ZGRLS on waves of much shorter length than a meter.
  • aiw
    aiw April 4 2016 09: 57
    +3
    > at the same time you can tell why the over-the-horizon radar Laguna is one kilometer long

    Because lambda / D hi

    Oleg, thanks for the article, plus. But with radars ... it's not yours.

    1) There is a tropospheric radio relay connection (this is a fact), i.e. You can send a signal to see the wave beyond the horizon.

    2) There is a principle of reciprocity (this is also a fact).

    Therefore, it is POTENTIAL possible to create ZGRLS on see waves. All your words that they say the interference will clog the signal, about nothing - you are not an expert in this field even once. You generally have a little physics ... the difference from the history of the fleet, then I take off my hat hi .
    1. Santa Fe
      April 4 2016 10: 29
      -7
      Quote: aiw
      There is a tropospheric radio relay connection (this is a fact)

      Well you and frame

      for regular communication, such conditions of superrefraction only in rare cases can provide the required stability, and therefore tropospheric waveguides do not form the basis of long-distance communications on ultrashort waves.

      Are you talking about some kind of radar
      1. aiw
        aiw April 4 2016 10: 33
        +1
        Depends on the required range, right?

        How do you explain the ability of the electronic warfare system AN / SLQ (V) 3 to steer along an elevation angle (to interfere with an elevation angle different from the elevator angle) Or is it only in the meter range of moget?
      2. Alex_59
        Alex_59 April 4 2016 11: 50
        +4
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        for regular communication, such conditions of superrefraction only in rare cases can provide the required stability, and therefore tropospheric waveguides do not form the basis of long-distance communications on ultrashort waves.

        This is probably a quote from somewhere. I wonder where? So no one claimed that the phenomenon of super-refraction exists everywhere and always. For ship radar with a wavelength of 2-4 cm, superrefraction depends on the time of year and the current weather. The farther south - the more stable. Up to half the days in a year may not work in the north, but already in the Serbian Sea - 90% of the days in a year there is a phenomenon. Sort of.
        But the Soviet tropospheric line "North" on 15-cm waves worked stably in the far north. But there already the dimensions of the equipment and the shoulder range are such that the ship does not fit.
  • xtur
    xtur April 4 2016 09: 32
    0
    > There is nothing to analyze
    > common sense is enough to assess the scale

    I agree one hundred percent - the fleet is useless, in the general case, and an extremely expensive toy in general, which is carried out by one volley of strategic bombers, which must be in sufficient quantity. Well, to them you need to add the satellite constellation of the required size for the central office

    The fleet makes sense exactly as it will be with the Russian Federation after the completion of the current rearmament programs - imprisoned for the defense of its coast
  • Kalmar
    Kalmar April 4 2016 08: 58
    +1
    Quote: Alex_59
    The US Navy may be cool, but is not capable of causing unacceptable damage to Russia as a state in principle.

    How to say it. The US Navy, with its Tomahawks, is quite capable of reaching a large number of Russian oil and gas pipelines. The destruction of which will be the most unacceptable damage. You can also remember theirs about SSBNs, but this is probably not quite about the fleet.

    Quote: Alex_59
    Those who wish to impose their will on the Russians, we invite on foot on the ground, and this is a completely different scenario.

    Our "partners" got the hang of their will and without any walking promenade on Russian territory to impose. But this is no longer exactly about the fleet, this is already politics.

    Quote: Alex_59
    1234 can drown a cruiser or even mash Avik. With some luck of course.

    As practice has shown, even a motor boat can greatly ruin a destroyer. But luck here still needs too much. Especially if you remember that American cruisers and destroyers rarely swim alone.
    1. Alex_59
      Alex_59 April 4 2016 09: 40
      +1
      Quote: Kalmar
      The US Navy, with its Tomahawks, is quite capable of reaching a large number of Russian oil and gas pipelines.

      Maybe, but for this you need to still go into the coastal seas. And to enter capiatively, massively. And this will be a serious slaughter. Everything, of course, depends on our quickness, but here the Americans can meet in abundance minefields, submarines, and aviation, striking from their own air defense zone. Therefore, I believe that our main efforts should be focused on not letting the enemy into the coastal zone - these are aviation, coastal troops, the setting of active minefields, anti-submarine corvettes with low visibility, RTOs. The coastal zone 500-800 km from our coast should be the death zone of any fleet in the world.
      Quote: Kalmar
      Our "partners" got the hang of their will and without any walking promenade on Russian territory to impose. But this is no longer exactly about the fleet, this is already politics.

      That's why you do not need to spray on all kinds of aircraft carriers and destroyers. All the same, we will never be able to compete on an equal footing off the coast of the combined NATO fleet. Why spend precious money and effort on this? It is better to bring PAK-FA to mind, rivet them with 1000 pieces - and give 200 of them to the Navy - that will be real strength.
      1. Kalmar
        Kalmar April 4 2016 10: 00
        +1
        Quote: Alex_59
        Maybe, but for this you need to still go into the coastal seas. And to enter capiatively, massively. And this will be a serious slaughter

        If we are talking about causing unacceptable damage, then there can be no way without serious slaughter. Russia, after all, is not Serbia and not Iraq; bombing it with impunity in any situation will not be possible with complete impunity.

        Quote: Alex_59
        Therefore, I believe that our main efforts should be focused on not letting the enemy into the coastal zone
        ...
        All the same, we will never be able to compete on an equal footing off the coast of the combined NATO fleet. Why spend precious money and effort on this?

        I agree with that. All kinds of aircraft carriers and nuclear-powered cruisers are, without a doubt, solid and prestigious, but a fleet comparable in strength to the American can’t afford us. It’s better to focus on defending your coast. Of course, in the case of a hypothetical big war, this would mean a loss of initiative at sea; not great, but apparently, you don’t have to choose.
        1. Alex_59
          Alex_59 April 4 2016 10: 27
          +2
          Quote: Kalmar
          If we are talking about causing unacceptable damage, then there can be no way without serious slaughter.

          Of course. But I proceed from the fact that our opponent (USA and NATO) doesn’t really, really, really like a serious carnage. It makes sense to beat Russia in order to enjoy the fruits of victory. That we can die, we have nothing to lose. But to them ... Our goal is to make the exchange extremely expensive. How many lives are they willing to give to destroy our gas pipelines? We’ll fix the pipelines sooner or later, but we won’t be able to return their drowned sailors.
          1. Kalmar
            Kalmar April 4 2016 12: 20
            +1
            Quote: Alex_59
            Of course. But I proceed from the fact that our opponent (USA and NATO) doesn’t really, really, really like a serious carnage.

            Again, I agree. I was talking about an unlikely scenario in which the United States, for some reason, decides to resort to force. So, most likely, "causing unacceptable damage" will take place according to the scenario described just below uv. Zero Zero Seventh.
      2. DimerVladimer
        DimerVladimer April 4 2016 11: 32
        +1
        Quote: Alex_59
        bring to mind PAK-FA, rivet them 1000 pieces - and give 200 of them to the Navy - that will be real strength.


        If the PAK FA cannot carry anti-ship missiles in the internal compartment, it is useless for a covert attack on a grouping of ships.

        The Argentines in the Falklands Conflict, used the Etandar Mirages with the Exocet anti-ship missile system - flying at low altitude, jumping up - turning on the target designation radar, pinpointing, launching from maximum distance and leaving at low altitude. This maneuver blew through them, because the British did not have an AWACS radar umbrella (Prowler), and the Harrier verticals could not provide cover for a long time.
        Accordingly, at low altitudes, the connection could be approached imperceptibly at an altitude of 30 m (it is very difficult to fly for hours at this altitude - one plane was lost from touching the wave).

        Who cares more:

        Memoirs
        Woodward Sandward Woodward Sandy
        Falkland War.
        Memoirs of the Commander of the Falkland Assault Group
        http://militera.lib.ru/memo/english/woodward_s01/index.html
        1. Alex_59
          Alex_59 April 4 2016 12: 30
          0
          Quote: DimerVladimer
          If the PAK FA cannot carry anti-ship missiles in the internal compartment, it is useless for a covert attack on a grouping of ships.

          It does not have to be the "locomotive" and the main striking force in the attack on ships. It can also work as a fighter, guarding aircraft with external anti-ship missiles. Their stability will increase significantly, in front of them, our PAK-FA will clear the sky and fetter enemy aircraft. Even if "very" noticeable TU-22Ms go into the attack, it will be much easier for them.
          Therefore, I believe that instead of projection in the form of aircraft carriers, all efforts should be thrown to aviation.
          1. Operator
            Operator April 4 2016 12: 44
            -1
            No one will attack the AUG with a saber for an advantage (with T-50).

            Tu-22 / Su-22 / Su-34 will fly up to the AUG at a distance of 1600 to 2500 km (outside the range of carrier-based aircraft) and release "doves of peace" (ASM).
            1. NEXUS
              NEXUS April 4 2016 12: 48
              +3
              Quote: Operator
              Tu-22 / Su-22 / Su-34 will fly up to the AUG at a distance of 1600 to 2500 km (outside the range of carrier-based aircraft) and release "doves of peace" (ASM).

              I apologize wildly, but enlighten what kind of RCC with a range of 1600-2500 km? How much scleroch doesn’t fail me, the most long-range RCC is Vulcan, with a range of up to 800 km (according to some reports up to 1000 km). laughing
              1. Operator
                Operator April 4 2016 13: 03
                -1
                What does "Caliber" do not suit you, or is there any doubt about the capabilities of its 2015 GOS compared to the Vulkana GOS of 1987?

                Or a nosebleed is required to get from Syria to Nimitz (as from the Caspian to Syria) for you to believe that Caliber is not a Club?

                And the massive armament of the new Russian NKs and submarines "Kalibrom" is carried out exclusively for attacks on land targets - like there are no more targets for us at sea, O. Kaptsov got everything mixed up? laughing
                1. NEXUS
                  NEXUS April 4 2016 13: 17
                  +1
                  Quote: Operator
                  What does "Caliber" do not suit you, or is there any doubt about the capabilities of its 2015 GOS compared to the Vulkana GOS of 1987?

                  Dear, Caliber-NK or Caliber-PL on surface hit targets at a maximum of 300 km, but not at 1600, and even more so at 2500 km.
                  1. Operator
                    Operator April 4 2016 14: 15
                    -1
                    Dear, this Club flies 300 km (on paper), and "Caliber" since last year has already been flying 1600 km, and in combat conditions.
                    1. NEXUS
                      NEXUS April 4 2016 15: 57
                      +3
                      Quote: Operator
                      Dear, this Club flies 300 km (on paper), and "Caliber" since last year has already been flying 1600 km, and in combat conditions.

                      Dear, CLAB-S (for underwater base) and CLAB-N (for surface base) is an export version of the Caliber-M and Caliber-A complex, respectively, domestic analogues ... as for the Caliber missiles themselves, on land missiles-2600M3 are used for targets with a range of up to 14 km, and on surface PKR-3M54E and 3M541E are used ... The flight range of 3M-54E is 220 kilometers, and the range of 3M-54E1 is 300 km.
                    2. The comment was deleted.
                    3. NEXUS
                      NEXUS April 4 2016 16: 31
                      +1
                      Quote: Operator
                      And where is the guarantee that there is no anti-ship version of 3М14, and if it does, then why should it be published on the Internet before actual combat use, as in Syria?

                      The ground target doesn’t move, and if it’s your logic where the same ship will be until the anti-ship missiles with such a range of 2600 km reach the point indicated in the target designation, the caliber accelerates in the last section to supersonic, and the main part of the flight flies from subsonic speed (approximately 0,7 Mach). And when the ASD reaches the target designation site, the ship will be very far away. By the way, about the missile defense system of the ship or squadron, which the ASD still has to go through, I deliberately kept silent so that you would not get lost at all.
                  2. Operator
                    Operator April 4 2016 16: 16
                    -1
                    Do you really think that data on export versions of anti-ship missiles (with the letter "E") correspond to their purely domestic counterparts (without the letter "E")?

                    And where is the guarantee that there is no anti-ship version of 3М14, and if it does, then why should it be published on the Internet before actual combat use, as in Syria?
  • mav1971
    mav1971 April 4 2016 20: 49
    +3
    Quote: Alex_59

    Maybe, but for this you need to still go into the coastal seas. And to enter capiatively, massively. And this will be a serious slaughter. Everything, of course, depends on our quickness, but here the Americans can meet in abundance minefields, submarines, and aviation, striking from their own air defense zone. Therefore, I believe that our main efforts should be focused on not letting the enemy into the coastal zone - these are aviation, coastal troops, the setting of active minefields, anti-submarine corvettes with low visibility, RTOs. The coastal zone 500-800 km from our coast should be the death zone of any fleet in the world.


    Alexey! Good day!
    You still rely on coastal defense, coastal infrastructure, and aviation.
    I wrote to you on March 17, but apparently you did not notice / or decided not to pay attention to my words.

    But I will repeat them again.
    It seems to me that in the confrontations of fleets in coastal areas, many in vain rely on the support of coastal infrastructure.
    And that ships can be built even less, they will still be supported.

    So.
    I have an opinion.
    They will not be supported.
    For 5000 cruise missiles, which are in the ammunition of the adversaries, will demolish all the potential coastal infrastructure.
    Waves, one by one.
    With many MALDS. With a flight range of 900 km.
    MALD - 100% simulation of flight modes and radiation modes of Tomahawk and other KR, carrier-based aircraft and most importantly ...
    Equipping a radio channel transmitting the coordinates of all detected and analyzed sources of radio emissions.
    Of which on the same B-52 there are almost 150 pieces in a hitch. (I’ll add even transport workers can carry them, dropping hundreds from the ramp as well). Well, deck aircraft.

    As a result, during an attack on the coastline of the Pacific Fleet, for example, a dozen heavy aircraft for MALD, conventional Ohio, five-8 Virginia with Elk, 2 Pacific carrier with an environment in 15 berks and teak are enough. Plus 2-3 Avax Sentry.
    Total will be 2000 Improved Tomahawks and one and a half thousand Mulds.

    They will endure everything possible.
    All real and reserve positional areas of the radar station, missile control system, airfields, fleet base, military positions, power lines, warehouses and storage facilities for fuel and lubricants and food, bridges, cliffs over roads, intersections.

    Everything will be made.
    From a distance to the coastline in 500 miles, in order to exclude a massive attack by IS aviation (bomber due to its small number can be neglected) from coastal airfields.
    In total, everything that can be in the 1600 zone of kilometers from the coastline and be related to the military infrastructure directly or indirectly will be necessarily swept away and destroyed.
    After a couple of thousand tomahawks and a half thousand Mulds - no aviation or coastal defense.

    And only then there will be an approach of the enemy fleet into the zone of potential reach of the potential coastal defense and the zone of action that you outlined in 500-800 km.


    It's just that the Americans are really very "fat", ships in the hundreds, missiles in the thousands, guided rocket bombs such as AGM-154 - in tens of thousands.
    there is simply no chance in this situation.
    Just rely on nuclear weapons.

    The above alignment is just two Amer fleets.
    Of the three in the Pacific Ocean.
    And realizing this, I completely agree with Oleg.
    You cannot compare the incomparable.
    If on earth you can still talk about parity with them. then on the water - no.
  • Vadim237
    Vadim237 April 4 2016 21: 00
    0
    Just cook four trillion rubles for this 1000 PAK FA.
  • Serg65
    Serg65 April 4 2016 07: 33
    +3
    Only a narrow-minded person can doubt the superiority of the US Navy over the Russian Navy. But the price of the issue, Oleg, is not in superiority, but in the strength of ya.its !!!! What was the most powerful US 6th Fleet doing when the Russians were capturing your allies in Syria ??? What is the main responsibility of the US Navy? Ensuring the landing of troops and the protection of convoys! The conquest of dominance in the oceans is simply a function of the Navy that flatters personal pride. You Oleg, again start comparing whose ship is cooler, but ALL armed forces of the country subjected to aggression are involved in repelling the landing, and not only "MiG-29K (4 units) and coastal-based fighters Su-30SM (8 units for the Black Sea Fleet aviation)" ... What are you right about is that Russia is not Serbia or Iraq, Adiku won at 41 in the London travel agency also said that it would be a pleasant trip to the Urals with some adrenaline ... and how can you believe now to these tour operators?
    1. Serg65
      Serg65 April 4 2016 07: 46
      +5
      And now Oleg, let's fantasize ... let's say some forces from Russia are starting to finance colored national minorities in the United States (well, purely neighing bully ), the national minorities arrange a color revolution and some marginals appear in the Capitol who have seized power. Having come to power, they (they initially did not sit on gold toilets and never drank D'AmalfiLimoncelloSupreme liqueur) begin to plunder and sell their country, in particular, they will sell it to India (and maybe not to India) on EM Zamwolt metal ... .and then why should Russia spend huge sums of money on the navy, when you can go the American way and destroy the "Evil Empire" at a bargain price ?! hi
      1. Santa Fe
        April 4 2016 08: 11
        +3
        Quote: Serg65
        and destroy the "Evil Empire" at a bargain price ?!

        US unemployment benefit is 60% of salary - an average of 350 dollars per week

        How much do local marginals need to pay to give up manna from heaven in the form of social services. help, stopped lying on the couch and went to the barricades)))) For a new life and even more social. fairness
        1. Serg65
          Serg65 April 4 2016 08: 21
          +1
          Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
          How much do local marginals need to pay to give up manna from heaven in the form of social services. help, stopped lying on the couch and went to the barricades)))) For a new life and even more social. fairness

          laughing For the price of one aircraft carrier off the couch, they do not just stand up and jump, and if still shout that out there around the corner white nigga kill, so funny independence day is provided to you!
          1. Santa Fe
            April 4 2016 08: 29
            +3
            Quote: Serg65
            the price of one aircraft carrier, they will not just get up off the couch but will jump

            70 million people x 350 dollars x 20 weeks per year = 0,5 trillion per year

            this is 50 times more than the cost of a nuclear carrier

            the stories about the spending of the American military are greatly exaggerated, the Pentagon budget is a trifle against the background of social spending
            1. Riv
              Riv April 4 2016 14: 28
              0
              You can add: if the same 70 million people WORK and pay the same $ 350 per week (in fact, a working American pays more), then this ... the same 50 nuclear aircraft carriers.
            2. saturn.mmm
              saturn.mmm April 4 2016 15: 38
              +1
              Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
              70 million people x 350 dollars x 20 weeks per year = 0,5 trillion per year

              70 million is the entire working population of the United States, about 17 million are unemployed.
              In Ukraine, Maidan suited 100 thousand.
              1. Blackmokona
                Blackmokona April 4 2016 22: 52
                0
                According to estimates by the US Bureau of Labor Statistics [7], as of February 2008, 153 people or 374% were economically active (000 had jobs)
            3. Blackmokona
              Blackmokona April 4 2016 22: 51
              0
              20 * 7 = 140
              Don't you think that in the year all the same a different number of weeks? wassat
        2. saturn.mmm
          saturn.mmm April 4 2016 14: 35
          0
          Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
          US unemployment benefit is 60% of salary - an average of 350 dollars per week

          For 2016, 46-49 from the last salary, the allowance varies by state, the highest in Massachusetts is $ 335, the lowest in Mississippi is $ 163 except for Puerto Rico, so an average of 250 is obtained.
          They receive a allowance for a certain period. At the end of this period, about 40% do not find work and are left without a livelihood, so there is still material for riveting revolutionaries in the USA.
          1. Santa Fe
            April 5 2016 02: 38
            0
            Quote: saturn.mmm
            On 2016 year 46-49 from the last salary,

            about 2 / 3
            Quote: saturn.mmm
            unemployed order of 17 million.

            Michael, do you seriously think that if there is an opportunity to get 6-7-8 thousand a year just like that, someone will give up easy money? degenerates take unpaid leave for 20 weeks. And, often, they continue to work for cash. that's the whole story
            1. saturn.mmm
              saturn.mmm April 5 2016 09: 47
              0
              Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
              Michael, do you seriously think that if there is an opportunity to get 6-7-8 thousand a year just like that, someone will give up easy money?

              They rarely give up freebies, to 6-8 thousand a year it’s even more tempting to get 10, besides, you don’t have to drop the ideological factor, there are always those who are dissatisfied and there are not a few of them, someone took a gun for illegal hunting, someone was punished for fishing in an unspecified place, etc.
              For the fleet in the article, you correctly expressed everything.
    2. Santa Fe
      April 4 2016 08: 05
      +8
      Quote: Serg65
      What did the most powerful 6 fleet of the United States do when the Russians hobbled your allies in Syria?

      He controlled the oil supply routes in the Persian Gulf and the Middle East

      As a result, gasoline in the US fell three times, reaching by February 1,55 ... 1,7 dollars per gallon (4 liters)

      How did gasoline cheapen in Russia by the way, with the start of the VKS operation in Syria?
      1. Serg65
        Serg65 April 4 2016 08: 15
        +1
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        As a result, gasoline in the US fell three times, reaching by February 1,55 ... 1,7 dollars per gallon (4 liters)

        And what would it not get cheaper if you buy oil at 12 $ per barrel?
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        How did gasoline cheapen in Russia by the way, with the start of the VKS operation in Syria?

        Russia does not conduct dubious deals with "wars of hell"
        1. Santa Fe
          April 4 2016 08: 31
          +2
          Quote: Serg65
          Russia does not conduct dubious deals with "wars of hell"

          Actually, the Russian Federation itself produces oil

          10 million barrels per day - the second exporter in the world
          Quote: Serg65
          And what would it not get cheaper if you buy oil at 12 $ per barrel?

          And you wondered why the sixth fleet
          1. Serg65
            Serg65 April 4 2016 09: 27
            +2
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            And you wondered why the sixth fleet

            Well, the fact that the 6 fleet is needed to ruin Syria and ensure smuggling oil purchases I have no doubt. I wonder why the most powerful 6 fleet did not oppose the weak Russian Navy in destroying the US underground business ???
            1. mav1971
              mav1971 April 4 2016 21: 35
              +1
              Quote: Serg65
              Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
              And you wondered why the sixth fleet

              Well, the fact that the 6 fleet is needed to ruin Syria and ensure smuggling oil purchases I have no doubt. I wonder why the most powerful 6 fleet did not oppose the weak Russian Navy in destroying the US underground business ???


              Smuggling is a ridiculous figure - there were 100 thousand barrels per day in the best of times.
              Compare this to 80 million barrels of production per day. This is 0.12% of volume.

              The daily oil consumption in the USA is 20 million barrels. The same Turetchina 0.7 - this smuggling is, in principle, not bad for her. but even for her is not fundamental.
      2. Kronos07
        Kronos07 April 4 2016 08: 55
        0
        The average price per gallon of regular gas in the US is currently $ 1,74, the cheapest since January 2009. About one in four gas stations in the country now sells fuel for $ 1,50 or less on gallon.Feb 9, 2016
        1. Operator
          Operator April 4 2016 09: 59
          +1
          A liter of gasoline in the USA now costs 40 cents, in Russia - 50 cents.
      3. Professor
        Professor April 4 2016 09: 51
        0
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        As a result, gasoline in the US fell three times, reaching by February 1,55 ... 1,7 dollars per gallon (4 liters)

        How did gasoline cheapen in Russia by the way, with the start of the VKS operation in Syria?

        Oleg, this is a blow below the waist. You do not deviate from the naval theme.

        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        Actually, the Russian Federation itself produces oil

        Not just mining, but mining in record quantities not seen before the village. March extraction to that document.

        Don't deviate from the topic. Article "plus". good
        1. Andrey77
          Andrey77 April 4 2016 11: 33
          +1
          Oleg already does not hesitate to beat below the belt, his arguments on the naval theme are over.
        2. bmv04636
          bmv04636 April 4 2016 11: 37
          +1
          let’s the professor compare the icebreaker fleet a. And although that is to compare
        3. saturn.mmm
          saturn.mmm April 4 2016 12: 16
          0
          Quote: Professor
          Oleg, this is a blow below the waist. You do not deviate from the naval theme.

          And in Israel, how much is gasoline?
          Quote: Professor
          Not just mining, but mining in record quantities not seen before the village. March extraction to that document.

          How much more than in the USA?
      4. Operator
        Operator April 4 2016 09: 56
        -1
        The elementary question is - at what distance from the Persian Gulf is the American AUG, which supposedly controls oil supplies?

        The control question is - at what distance from the Persian Gulf are Russian air and sea bases in Syria, as well as the Caspian flotilla (to which all existing and under construction MRCs of the Russian Navy can be redeployed along river routes)?

        The rhetorical question - well, who then controls the supply of energy from the largest extractive region on Earth - Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, the UAE and Oman?
      5. saturn.mmm
        saturn.mmm April 4 2016 11: 41
        0
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        How did gasoline cheapen in Russia by the way, with the start of the VKS operation in Syria?

        In Russia, gasoline costs $ 0,53 per liter and in the US $ 0,6 per liter as of March 28.03.2016, XNUMX, so gasoline is cheaper in Russia.
        1,7 is the price of gas, which is $ 0,44 per liter, in Russia $ 0,25 per liter for liquefied gas.
      6. bddrus
        bddrus April 8 2016 14: 34
        0
        in dollars of course
    3. oblako
      oblako April 4 2016 11: 26
      0
      I'm certainly a layman in naval affairs, but ... An American-scale aircraft carrier is a painfully tempting target, and I don't think that the logic of a land battle, where the advantage in tanks is compensated by the presence of anti-tank weapons, does not work on water. And if the forces are correlated according to the cost-effectiveness criterion, then the defense tasks can and should be solved with less means and, as practice shows, they are.
      As for aircraft-carrying vessels, for the sake of survivability it is more logical to have smaller vessels and several, with a small amount of aircraft (10-15 units), may not even be universal in terms of the tasks being solved. (AWACS, ground attack aircraft, air defense, etc.) This is still more expensive, of course ... Is it just worth investing in a large aircraft carrier with the already existing superiority of the enemy and clearly visible shortcomings of "large" aircraft carriers. This is so, thinking aloud "infantry-sofa-sailor") Real sailors will "adjust" if that, tell what is what ...))
  • alex-712
    alex-712 April 4 2016 07: 39
    +1
    The dude described everything correctly, we have a good fleet, but there are few units, although remembering the urgency when we went to sea we met very few people, while standing at the base we constantly listened to negotiations in coastal waters.
  • Operator
    Operator April 4 2016 07: 58
    -6
    The entire US fleet is based on aircraft carriers, from 9 to 12. Having sunk which, you can keep all other US ships on a long leash - at least outside the combat radius of ground-based aviation from 1000 to 2000 km. In this zone, diesel submarines with cruise missiles on board with a flight range from 1600 km (with conventional warheads) to 2500 km (with special warheads) will operate.

    What the US Navy will do at sea at a distance from 2600 to 4500 km from the continental territory of Eurasia controlled by Russia and China is their own business. If they try to use ballistic missiles with thermonuclear warheads, they will receive an answer in the form of launching much more numerous ground-based ICBMs.

    It is also useful to recall that there are no contractual prohibitions on the deployment of medium-range marine ballistic missiles with a range of up to 2500 km and a flight time of up to 10 minutes, equipped with homing maneuvering warheads. Their carriers can be any small surface and underwater (with launch after ascent) ships.

    The same is true for local conflicts without a direct clash between the United States and Russia and / or China - for example, as soon as the Russian air and naval bases were deployed in Syria, the American AUGs were blown away by the wind within the flight radius of the Su-34 and the Caliber KR. Exactly the same situation arose in the Pacific Ocean after China dumped a number of artificial islands - "unsinkable aircraft carriers".

    PS The notorious external target designation for KR / BR for radio-contrast targets over the sea surface is solved using ground over-the-horizon radar 29B6 "Container" with a detection range of any aircraft, cruise missile in flight and ballistic missile on OUT - 3000 km, surface ship of the corvette class and above - 6000 km and orders AUG / KUG - 9000 km. At the same time, decameter waves of over-the-horizon radars are deeply indifferent to any stealth technology.
    1. Stirbjorn
      Stirbjorn April 4 2016 09: 26
      +1
      Quote: Operator
      Having sunk which, you can keep all other US ships on a long leash - at least outside the combat radius of ground-based aviation from 1000 to 2000 km.

      And you’ll keep an apple on a leash?
      1. Operator
        Operator April 4 2016 10: 02
        -4
        And for American nuclear submarines on a long leash, we have Russian ICBMs.
        1. Vadim237
          Vadim237 April 4 2016 11: 12
          +2
          Only their submarines also have ICBMs, which are not inferior to ours and even surpass them.
          1. Operator
            Operator April 4 2016 11: 52
            -2
            And what the hell to bring SLBMs (the so-called ICBMs on board the nuclear submarines) closer to the Russian border than 8000 km (average range of SLBMs)?
            1. Stirbjorn
              Stirbjorn April 4 2016 12: 36
              0
              And what the hell do I mock the ICBMs on apl? Did I understand you correctly? - ICBM intercontinental ballistic missiles
              1. Operator
                Operator April 4 2016 12: 52
                -1
                ICBMs are used in a retaliatory strike when launching SLBMs from a submarine. By themselves, nuclear submarines without SLBMs are of no interest to anyone.
    2. DimerVladimer
      DimerVladimer April 4 2016 11: 42
      +6
      Quote: Operator
      As soon as the air and naval bases of Russia were located in Syria, the American AUGs were blown away by the wind within the radius of flight of the Su-34 and KR "Caliber".


      what nonsense?
  • Kudrevkn
    Kudrevkn April 4 2016 08: 08
    +1
    We are all strategists and tacticians! And although Russia has not won at sea for 200 years, even such a small fleet fulfills its main function - a factor of deterring aggression! A kind of balance - isn't it in our favor yet !? that with regards to "Hitler had 1172 submarines" is not true, it would be more accurate to say that Germany built so many boats during the war years (in the USSR 17 units). Hitler started the war with 57 (!) Boats of which 36 were ocean-going, but in his speech "on the successes of the 6th Army at Stalingrad" he himself said that if he had at least 300 boats at the beginning of the war. knees and WB and US! And, unfortunately, this is the true truth - in 2 MV it. submariners sank 34 million tons of Allied ships and vessels, incl. THE USSR! But the Author forgot to include in his list our most powerful aircraft carrier - Crimea! This strike "aircraft carrier" allows us to deliver, if something happens, a "retaliation strike" throughout Europe, the East and Africa up to the equator by the forces of strategic aviation and the possible deployment of strike complexes of the Strategic Missile Forces! So is it stupid to "weigh" only the ship's iron as on a "scrap" weight when accepting scrap metal?
  • sevtrash
    sevtrash April 4 2016 08: 09
    0
    This is probably an incomplete comparison. And what about auxiliary units of the fleet? Their presence, condition? It is necessary to take into account the state of naval bases, their ability to provide not only service / supply of combat units, but also just life needs, including recreation and entertainment for sailors and their family members.
    And yet - high-level organizational support of the fleet, including its development program, R&D, response to new threats, interaction with other branches of the armed forces, etc.
    But still - it's all later. And most importantly - the state of the economy. Everything else is important, but secondary.
  • DM51
    DM51 April 4 2016 08: 19
    +4
    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
    Quote: Serg65
    I'm sorry, why did you lose?

    Battle of the Atlantic - because the Germans did not have enough ships

    Oleg, the Germans lost the battle for the Atlantic because they got involved in a war with the USSR, which took all their human and material resources from them and thanks to the heroism and stamina of our soldiers, especially in the early years of the war, when there were huge miscalculations in the command among our General Staff, we broke the ridge Nazi Germany, if Hitler used all the power that had hit our Motherland against England, then we would not have to fight for the Atlantic either, since German troops would have stood in London
    1. Santa Fe
      April 4 2016 08: 34
      -1
      Quote: DM51
      Oleg, the Germans lost the battle for the Atlantic because they got involved in a war with the USSR, which took all their human and material resources from them and thanks to the heroism and stamina of our soldiers

      how does this override a simple fact: with a lack of ships and those. means inevitable defeat follows

      where all the necessary resources went is another matter. Were spent on the eastern front
  • DM51
    DM51 April 4 2016 08: 51
    +3
    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
    Quote: Serg65
    What did the most powerful 6 fleet of the United States do when the Russians hobbled your allies in Syria?

    He controlled the oil supply routes in the Persian Gulf and the Middle East

    As a result, gasoline in the US fell three times, reaching by February 1,55 ... 1,7 dollars per gallon (4 liters)

    How did gasoline cheapen in Russia by the way, with the start of the VKS operation in Syria?

    Do you seriously think that oil has fallen in price as a result of the actions of the 6th US fleet ?!laughing. Oil prices have fallen because someone has decided so, while our gasoline is getting more expensive, because someone doesn’t want to lose money and compensates for the loss of profits on the external market due to the domestic market, and why the government doesn’t prune it - this is another matter
  • kapitan281271
    kapitan281271 April 4 2016 08: 54
    +8
    An extreme case, but I completely agree with Oleg here, except for bravura speeches, nothing. So many pomp around Syria, and there they collected almost everything that can fly, they drove the "Varyag" from the Pacific Fleet to change the "Glory" from every hole. Miracles do not happen, a powerful fleet is a powerful economy. And while instead of the Slavskys, Kosygins, Ustinovs, there are Manturovs, Dvorkovichs, Ulyukayevs of a powerful ocean fleet, and it's a pity I was born when the fleet of my country was one of the strongest, if not the strongest, but to live up to that apparently not destined. So far, people even on this site are not ashamed to write articles like "goodbye germany" where they enthusiastically tell how we twisted the Germans and replaced their un-supplied turbines with Chinese ATTENTION not with our own but with Chinese and very proud of what kind of fleet we are talking about.
    1. NEXUS
      NEXUS April 4 2016 11: 57
      +1
      Quote: kapitan281271
      An extreme case, but I completely agree with Oleg here, except for bravura speeches.

      There is no need to compare "deep with long". Over the past 5-6 years, the Russian fleet has received more ships and submarines than in the previous 20 years. The length of the Russian border (excluding the annexation of Crimea in 2014) is 60 km! The U.S. border is 932 kilometers long, with maritime boundaries accounting for most of that length, which explains why the U.S. has a more powerful navy.
      1. Vadim237
        Vadim237 April 4 2016 12: 51
        +1
        Over the past 5-6 years, the Russian fleet received more ships and submarines than in the previous 20 years. “And 70 to 80 percent of these new ships are auxiliary vessels and boats.”
        1. NEXUS
          NEXUS April 4 2016 13: 01
          +1
          Quote: Vadim237
          Over the past 5-6 years, the Russian fleet received more ships and submarines than in the previous 20 years. “And 70 to 80 percent of these new ships are auxiliary vessels and boats.”

          And before that, auxiliary boats and boats were not particularly built ...
        2. Alex_59
          Alex_59 April 4 2016 13: 20
          +1
          Quote: Vadim237
          And percent of 70 - 80 of these new ships are auxiliary vessels and boats.

          And this has always fascinated me too. We are so dismissive of some kind of "auxiliary" courts. Give us aircraft carriers! The fleet can be said from the support and begins - without a tanker-autumniser-collector, the morale is generally zero. They always did not like the helper, on the eve of the Second World War they did not do it at all, as well as some useless minesweepers and patrolmen - give us cruisers with destroyers. As a result, the Seiners fought. Or when "Komsomolets" or "Kursk" sinks, it turns out that the entire rescue "auxiliary" is torn apart and is engaged in commercial transportation. To put on a fur coat, you must first put on panties - let them build an auxiliary fleet, the approach is exceptionally correct!
  • S_Baykala
    S_Baykala April 4 2016 09: 25
    +1
    It seems to me that the Amer fleet is imprisoned and created as a means of intimidation and dominance throughout the oceans. This is a nation parasite and aggressor, with the help of this tool (the most powerful in the world, even the most powerful, FIGS with it, the army, aviation and navy), directly or indirectly provoking instability in all regions of the world. To dominate its single means of payment for all countries - a green note. The stability of which is supported precisely by the army and navy. But for a direct military conflict, they were not created (in our understanding). Rather, they were created, but this was a secondary goal. Because they are very expensive. And their price pays off only as a result of minimal or no loss. But such a situation is possible only in a collision with technically poorly equipped countries: Iraq, Libya, Syria, etc. They will not climb into a direct clash with China and with us. They will rattle muscles, defiantly pace connections and orders. They can even afford isolated cases of clashes on the verge of a foul. But losses as a result of a direct collision with our fleets and armies are unacceptable to them. It is much easier and more efficient to bend or intimidate another unrequited country or state.
    Our fleet is imprisoned for another task - the protection of our state. And here he interacts with the ground forces and aviation, is under their cover, which increases its effectiveness at times. Why for this aircraft carriers - I'm sorry, not in the know. Enlighten, if not difficult.
    ps I do not consider nuclear weapons as the most powerful argument. Because the Amerov naval commander, who is in his right mind, will not give the order to start hostilities against China or Russia (especially against these crazy Russians laughing ) knowing almost certainly that as a result of his victory he will receive the winning fleet (if possible) without a home port.
    hi
  • DM51
    DM51 April 4 2016 09: 25
    +5
    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
    Quote: DM51
    Oleg, the Germans lost the battle for the Atlantic because they got involved in a war with the USSR, which took all their human and material resources from them and thanks to the heroism and stamina of our soldiers

    how does this override a simple fact: with a lack of ships and those. means inevitable defeat follows

    where all the necessary resources went is another matter. Were spent on the eastern front

    The fact that Germany would not have conquered the war, if it were not for the Eastern Front, but the German fleet played a secondary role, everything for Hitler was decided in the vastness of our Motherland, can it really not reach you?
  • NEXUS
    NEXUS April 4 2016 09: 31
    +7
    Favorite occupation of our “sofa experts” is the deliberately meaningless comparison of the potentials of the fleets of Russia and the USA. It contains no more sense than the mention of “pampers” and regular articles about the concern of the American command in connection with the “growing lag in the field of naval armaments from Russia and China.” The accumulated potential is so great that American admirals can “not climb the bridge” until the middle of the century.

    The article is essentially about nothing. Compare the power of the fleets of the continental power and the sea-bullshit. The doctrines are different for the mattresses and ours. Our priority is to strengthen the land component, the Strategic Missile Forces, etc., while we have a defensive doctrine as opposed to mattresses, which need the ocean fleet as air, that’s why most of the defense assets are invested in the United States precisely in the fleet.
    The article is stupid and not informative. But the praises for the glory of American weapons from the author are fed up with listening, due to the fact that more often they are just praises and nothing more.
  • EvilLion
    EvilLion April 4 2016 09: 38
    -3
    Strategic Missile Forces do not care about all this.
    1. Andrey77
      Andrey77 April 4 2016 11: 35
      0
      It’s a long wait before the Strategic Missile Forces combat use ... :)
    2. Vadim237
      Vadim237 April 4 2016 13: 03
      +1
      Only ICBMs are not intended to destroy mobile targets - just like a fleet at sea, and cruise missiles with nuclear warheads may not pass through the air defense and missile defense of the US fleet, because these areas are improving every year, so their fleet is very serious for us a threat, as an example on one Burke destroyer, it is possible, hypothetically, to place 50 cruise missiles and as many air defense and missile defense missiles as there are 75 such destroyers in service.
      1. Operator
        Operator April 4 2016 13: 54
        +1
        Of course, I apologize, but according to your logic, our CRs will not reach their ships one by one (Aegis is a wunderwafer), and their CRs will hit our land objects as one (C-300 / C-400 is obsolete trash) ?

        But will it not be exactly the opposite? High-contrast ships in a radio range on a table-like surface of the sea will be hit by our land, air and sea-based CRs (RTOs in general are an ideal mobile platform - cheap and angry), and all their CRs will be severely shot down when approaching our camouflaged objects covered by a layered air defense system from C-300 / C-400 and other systems of medium and short range?

        Once again - ICBMs and SLBMs are designed to strike at the enemy himself (the military-industrial complex, infrastructure, mobilization contingent), and not at his advanced means of attack - for this there are medium-range cruise and ballistic missiles.
        1. Andrey77
          Andrey77 April 4 2016 15: 12
          0
          Cruise missiles will not reach / reach the USA. No need to fool yourself.
          1. Vadim237
            Vadim237 April 4 2016 17: 05
            0
            Warheads will fly right up to the United States and its bases.
        2. Vadim237
          Vadim237 April 4 2016 17: 04
          0
          For Ajis and air defense systems and fighter cover aircraft, aircraft carrier formations, it will not be difficult to hit subsonic cruise missiles, and as for our air defense system, even for the C 300 and C 400 it will be difficult to accompany and destroy low-flying cruise missiles in our territory, in view of the very complex hilly and mountainous terrain.
          1. Operator
            Operator April 4 2016 18: 20
            -1
            What is the difficulty of detecting arbitrarily low-flying Tomahawks from the A-50 AWACS aircraft, and even over our territory / water area?
            1. Vadim237
              Vadim237 April 4 2016 21: 16
              0
              Aircraft AWACS cannot illuminate a flying cruise missile, for anti-aircraft missiles, they will have to take control of the anti-aircraft missile, since the missile head and ground-based radars do not see the winged one behind the terrain. Above the surface of the water, everything is much simpler.
              1. Operator
                Operator April 4 2016 23: 16
                -1
                Aircraft AWACS do not highlight anything, but determine the coordinates of targets and transmit information in real time to anti-aircraft missile systems that launch missiles and radio command control them until the target is captured by GOS missiles.
            2. mav1971
              mav1971 April 4 2016 21: 52
              0
              Quote: Operator
              What is the difficulty of detecting arbitrarily low-flying Tomahawks from the A-50 AWACS aircraft, and even over our territory / water area?


              Well, you found a cloud of 300-400 rockets - then what?

              At least the fact that we have about 12 pcs of them workable.
              They find CR at a distance of 200 km.
              Guidance can only be carried out on 10 fighters.
              A control system for all kinds of air defense systems with launch commands and target designation from the A-50 (the so-called network-centric) does not exist.
              1. KaPToC
                KaPToC April 4 2016 22: 41
                -1
                By the time the US Navy concentrates such a large group on our shores, vigorous loaves will be in flight.
              2. Operator
                Operator April 4 2016 23: 20
                -1
                Aircraft AWACS do not control anything - they only determine the coordinates of the targets and transmit them to the ground center for air defense to distribute targets between fighters and air defense systems.

                The communication channels between the AWACS and the ground center were worked out by 100 percent.

                Guidance fighters and air defense missiles carry their command centers.
                1. Vadim237
                  Vadim237 April 5 2016 01: 40
                  0
                  No system in the world can control an anti-aircraft missile in flight when the target — a cruise missile — flies in the folds of the terrain — it is invisible to ground-based radars, and if the radar does not see it, then there will be no illumination, and if there is no illumination and there is no stable tracking of the target, then there will be no missile launch, even if the anti-aircraft missile has an active homing head, a cruise missile flying in ravines at an altitude of 3-4 meters above the ground - it will not see.
                  1. Operator
                    Operator April 5 2016 08: 12
                    -1
                    The minimum altitude of a cruise missile flying over a flat land surface is 15-20 meters. Otherwise, a train of dust raised by the jet from the engine unmasks the rocket.
                    Above rough terrain, the minimum flight altitude is doubled or tripled due to the limited reaction time of the missile control system to changes in obstacle heights.

                    In the case of the transfer of coordinates and the motion vector of the CR from the side of the AWACS to the SAM, the anti-aircraft missiles are aimed at the calculated point of the meeting for the purpose without tracking the target by the air defense radar.
                    If necessary, anti-aircraft missiles fly in an arc with an attack of a low-flying target from the upper hemisphere.
                    1. Vadim237
                      Vadim237 April 5 2016 18: 21
                      0
                      "Otherwise, the plume of dust raised by the jet from the engine will unmask the rocket." At a height of 4 meters, at a speed of 280 meters per second - a dusty shelf - something looks like a fairy tale, and then someone on the dusty shelf will see it - perhaps some hunters and mushroom pickers.
                      "In the case of transmission of coordinates and a vector of motion of the CD, from the AWACS to the air defense missile system, anti-aircraft missiles are guided to the calculated meeting point with the target, without tracking the target by the air defense system radar." The AWACS aircraft have a viewing radius of only 250 kilometers, well, it detects a missile - but it will not be able to highlight the target and direct an anti-aircraft missile at it - what is this design point of meeting in ravines and rocks around which a cruise missile will fly? - it must be admitted that only a rocket from a fighter or interceptor can hit the target in such conditions.
                      1. Operator
                        Operator April 5 2016 18: 36
                        -1
                        Google the video of flights of jet aircraft at an altitude of 10-15 meters above the water surface - behind them stretches a wall of water raised to the same height by a jet engine.

                        Once again, the AWACS does not illuminate, but implements the so-called external target designation: "Ale, SAM, I transmit the coordinates and direction of the target's flight." The air defense missile system, using its own computer, calculates the meeting point with the target (target capture of the missile seeker) and launches the missile along an arc trajectory in the direction of this point.
                        If the missile launcher begins to maneuver, then the airborne warning system transmits its new coordinates and direction to the air defense system, the air defense system calculates a new point, transmits it to the missile and so on until the target is captured by the missile’s seeker.
                        Then the air defense system switches to a new target. Modern air defense systems can simultaneously control multiple missiles at once for many purposes.

                        The SAM system knows the topography of the surrounding area (the so-called digital map), therefore, the calculated point is determined in the airspace, and not in the thickness of the mountain range, for example.
  • Derfuchs
    Derfuchs April 4 2016 09: 46
    -2
    how much has already been commented — compared to the USA, we simply don’t have a fleet — Just a shaky shadow. Of course, we don’t need such things as ours, but we don’t have the same priorities, but we have to do some work !!! - It's a shame to read like that and realize that we have a fleet of cat’s tears, but Petrnachinal from scratch, too, and we need to pull ourselves up. all if only enough time
  • Greyjojo
    Greyjojo April 4 2016 10: 06
    +1
    "In all honesty, let's ask: what serious military consequences did Tsushima have? Did the Japanese reach Moscow? No - that's the whole answer. Just like the loss of a part of Sevastopol during the Crimean War and its re-occupation during the Second World War. All of these were quite minor, minor troubles for a huge land power. "
    War is a continuation of politics,
    the defeat in the Russo-Japanese War largely determined the first Russian revolution of 1905. Losing the Pacific Fleet.
    The loss of Sevastopol in the Crimean - the loss of presence in the Black Sea.
    during the Second World War, tens of thousands of dead soldiers and the transfer of the entire fascist group in the direction of the main blow - to the Caucasus. Minor episode ....
    1. Santa Fe
      April 4 2016 10: 12
      -1
      Quote: GreyJoJo
      largely determined the first Russian revolution of the 1905 of the year.

      These are already internal problems of the country.
      Quote: GreyJoJo
      Losing the Pacific Fleet.

      So, what is next
      Quote: GreyJoJo
      The loss of Sevastopol in the Crimean - the loss of presence in the Black Sea.

      And then
      1. Kronos07
        Kronos07 April 4 2016 10: 51
        0
        I think there is a problem blaming people, instead of just moving on and working.
      2. Derfuchs
        Derfuchs April 4 2016 14: 40
        -1
        and then ... the banquet may happen again
      3. Derfuchs
        Derfuchs April 4 2016 14: 40
        -1
        and then ... the banquet may happen again
  • bmv04636
    bmv04636 April 4 2016 10: 30
    -1
    And where is the comparison in the icebreaker fleet and the professor or nothing to say
    1. Kronos07
      Kronos07 April 4 2016 15: 29
      0
      icebreaker fleet? I did not know that Russia had put weapons on the icebreaker fleet
      1. bmv04636
        bmv04636 April 5 2016 07: 13
        0
        "At the beginning of 1975, a huge scandal broke out in Agitprop. A large photo of the icebreaker Arktika was placed on the cover of the Ogonyok magazine. Everything would be fine, but all sorts of fans there saw the AK-726 gun mount in the photo. And indeed, the mobilization armament of the Arktika icebreakers "Provided for two paired 76-mm mounts AK-726 and four six-barrel AK-630. With these weapons," Arctic "and passed state tests."
      2. bmv04636
        bmv04636 April 5 2016 07: 15
        0
        "At the beginning of 1975, a huge scandal broke out in Agitprop. A large photo of the icebreaker Arktika was placed on the cover of the Ogonyok magazine. Everything would be fine, but all sorts of fans there saw the AK-726 gun mount in the photo. And indeed, the mobilization armament of the Arktika icebreakers "Provided for two paired 76-mm mounts AK-726 and four six-barrel AK-630. With these weapons," Arctic "and passed state tests."
  • DM51
    DM51 April 4 2016 10: 46
    +5
    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
    Quote: GreyJoJo
    largely determined the first Russian revolution of the 1905 of the year.

    These are already internal problems of the country.
    Quote: GreyJoJo
    Losing the Pacific Fleet.

    So, what is next
    Quote: GreyJoJo
    The loss of Sevastopol in the Crimean - the loss of presence in the Black Sea.

    And then

    By the way, Oleg, the thesis that the loss of our naval bases for our country is uncritical, you took from the first part of articles Alexa_59 about ship’s armor, where he chopped you nuts, but didn’t indicate the source - it’s bad on your part - the link should be given to the source wink
    1. Alex_59
      Alex_59 April 4 2016 12: 36
      +2
      Quote: DM51
      By the way, Oleg, the thesis that the loss of our naval bases for our country is uncritical, you took from the first part of articles Alexa_59 about ship armor
      not good on your part - the link must be given to the source

      We graciously forgive the servant of God, Oleg Kaptsov. laughing
      If the thought is sound and useful - let it belong to everyone, without exception, for the benefit of the cause and enlightenment in the brains of the population.
    2. Alex_59
      Alex_59 April 4 2016 12: 45
      +2
      Quote: DM51
      about ship’s armor, where he chopped you up

      By the way, I think Oleg sat down at the Kuhlmann and is now drawing his project of an armadillo of the new millennium. And I know in advance what he will succeed. It will be an invincible super-ship, miraculously protected by 500 mm armor, a bunch of Aegis, the most super-duper modern electronic warfare, and it will also be cheap and suitable for mass construction. Paper - it will endure everything, even wunderwafes that are not realized in metal. And soon he will finish it and put it on public display. We will be put to shame and go drink yadu. In general, the opponent accumulates strength for a retaliatory strike. laughing
      1. DrVintorez
        DrVintorez April 4 2016 13: 11
        0
        Alex, you forgot to add that the battleship will be American.
      2. The comment was deleted.
  • Andrey77
    Andrey77 April 4 2016 11: 31
    0
    Over the past 15 years, the Russian fleet has received the multipurpose nuclear submarine Cheetah (Project 971)
    --
    Oleg calm down. "Cheetah" underwent an average repair and was removed from the second category to the first.
    1. saturn.mmm
      saturn.mmm April 4 2016 17: 36
      0
      Quote: Andrey77
      Oleg calm down. "Cheetah" underwent an average repair and was removed from the second category to the first.

      It became a member in 2002, so Oleg is right.
      Over the past 15 years, the Russian fleet has received the multipurpose nuclear submarine Cheetah (Project 971)
      1. Andrey77
        Andrey77 April 8 2016 09: 01
        0
        It became a member in 2002, so Oleg is right.
        --
        I won’t even minus you. Those. 14 years without a single repair? Then (if it has not rotted at the pier), it is dangerous to untie it from the pier, in general I am silent about going to the BS ...
  • Operator
    Operator April 4 2016 11: 35
    -3
    U.S. presidential candidate and rational politician Donald Trump clearly stated his intention to withdraw from NATO and withdraw from the Middle and Far East - such as transferring the nth amount of nuclear weapons (to the one who does not have it) to former allies and let them spin as best they can.

    That would make the escort of ocean convoys and the maintenance of the "Great White Fleet" of the United States pointless. So we have to wait eight months before the elections and only after that it will make sense to rub on the issue of comparing fleets.
  • bmv04636
    bmv04636 April 4 2016 11: 40
    +1
    professor and how much gasoline in Israel
  • fix
    fix April 4 2016 11: 58
    +1
    the site already had an opinion on this matter
  • Irbenwolf
    Irbenwolf April 4 2016 12: 14
    0
    Oleg, let’s offer the Americans to add armor to their "dishes", or should they stick 96-3 towers with artillery pieces instead of "4 mines"? It's a profitable business !!! For all. The Russian fleet will be even poorer, and the American one even more advanced ...
  • 1c-inform-city
    1c-inform-city April 4 2016 12: 45
    +1
    Of course, I would like our fleet to be the largest and most powerful, but Russia has only one non-freezing ocean port. Therefore, everything must be approached reasonably. With today's technology, the Black Sea and Baltic are no longer rolling. It is not for nothing that, with a vast maritime border, our country is considered a land power. request It was for this reason that the USSR was so stubbornly developing the underwater component.
    1. Vadim237
      Vadim237 April 4 2016 13: 05
      +1
      Nuclear submarines with cruise missiles need to be increased.
  • Kenneth
    Kenneth April 4 2016 12: 58
    0
    The US Navy is an essential part of the missile defense structure. And this sad fact for us does not allow us to relate to it without respect. Our land-based ICBMs can largely be knocked out precisely by the fleet. Therefore, it now makes sense to develop only what really can happen to ensure a missile defense breakthrough - strike submarines.
    1. ametist415
      ametist415 April 4 2016 13: 31
      0
      Submarines alone will not work.
    2. Alex_59
      Alex_59 April 4 2016 13: 42
      +2
      Quote: Kenneth
      Our land-based ICBMs can largely be knocked out precisely by the fleet.
      SM-3 cannot intercept ICBMs. Only medium-range, without a missile defense missile defense with a previously known trajectory at altitudes of not more than 250 km.
      Even when parked in Arkhangelsk, the SM-3 will not be able to intercept Poplar launched from the nearest Kirov region - over Arkhangelsk the height of its trajectory will be more than 380 km.
      They will also have some problems on the downward trajectory - the destroyer will have to drag it into Canada Ottawa and it will take a few seconds to intercept.
      1. Operator
        Operator April 4 2016 14: 32
        -1
        Several explosions of megaton BBs in the ionosphere over the North Sea and all Aegis will smoothly pass into the category of air defense systems in connection with the blocking of radar signals for the survey of outer space.
        1. NEXUS
          NEXUS April 4 2016 16: 02
          +1
          Quote: Operator
          Several explosions of megaton BBs in the ionosphere over the North Sea and all Aegis will smoothly pass into the category of air defense systems in connection with the blocking of radar signals for the survey of outer space.

          How famously ... wassat And in response, the ICBM will fly in, and an occurat will land next to the house where your family lives. And after sending the whole world to dust and all the short life.
          Use less computer shooters, otherwise you have porridge in your head, a warrior sofa. fool
      2. opus
        opus April 4 2016 21: 39
        0
        Quote: Alex_59
        SM-3 cannot intercept ICBMs. Only medium-range, without a missile defense missile defense with a previously known trajectory at altitudes of not more than 250 km.

        1. On an active site is able

        SS-19 trap trajectory when striking Norfolk, Virginia for Block IIA, based in Poland (in green) and in the North Sea (in red) ..

        The SM-3 Block IIA can intercept ICBMs between 280 s (first opportunity to intercept) and 563 s (last opportunity) after the launch of the interceptor.

        2. About 250km ... It all depends on the interception range,

        altitude / range interception chart Standard Missile 3 Block I (red) and Block II (blue), which follow from computer simulation of missile trajectories.

        and SAM .. to replace Block I A / B "is" Block IIA

        Quote: Alex_59
        On a downward path, they will also have some problems

        What for?
        there are GBI
        1. Operator
          Operator April 4 2016 23: 29
          -1
          Interception of BB ICBMs (launched from the European part of Russia) in the initial sections of the trajectories is possible only when targets are captured by Arly Berkov radars, and it will not be possible after the first BB (launched from the Asian part of Russia) are detonated in the ionosphere over the areas where destroyers are deployed.

          So the capabilities of the US Navy supposedly to counter the Strategic Missile Forces of the Russian Federation are a simple cut of the US budget.
          1. opus
            opus April 5 2016 01: 00
            +1
            Quote: Operator
            Interception BB ICBMs

            what BB? I'm talking about the ACTIVE section ... bus has not yet thrown off the BB.
            Seconds, then at least take a look!
            Quote: Operator
            BB (launched from the Asian part of Russia) in the ionosphere over the deployment areas of destroyers.


            what BB, what "ionosphere? BB will appear (with a flat 250 km, and with a" normal "300 -500 km), and already over the Atlantic.

            Quote: Operator
            are a simple cut of the American budget.

            1. Are you an American citizen?
            2.Do you pay to the US budget?
            No? WHAT ARE THROUGH THAN? Let them saw
            1. Operator
              Operator April 5 2016 08: 22
              -1
              The ionosphere begins at an altitude of 60 km. The explosion of a nuclear charge in the ionosphere at the point between the location of the Arleigh Berkov in the Atlantic and the OUTs of the stages of disengagement of Russian ICBMs in space blocks the radars of the destroyers.
              The yulokiruyuschee charge to an altitude of 150-200 km can be carried out by an Iskander-M missile - the capacity of a 480-kg special warhead will be about 1 Mt.

              Cutting the budget of a likely adversary is causing damage to a likely adversary, however.
  • Taoist
    Taoist April 4 2016 13: 35
    +4
    Sound thoughts. It really makes no sense for us to chase YUS NEVI, and even more so to try to surpass them in "the number of keels" or tonnage, we have a different geopolitical position and fundamentally different tasks solved by the military fleet.
    True, the second half of the thesis "The harsh truth is that the Russian Navy, like other fleets of the world, in principle, lacks the equipment available to American sailors." (C) In this case, it raises questions - how much does our Navy need? in that case, "equipment available to American sailors"?
    And even more senseless in this case are the author's constant appeals to "build battleships". However, maybe he calls YUS Navi? Then I don't mind ... let them build. ;-)
    1. Operator
      Operator April 4 2016 14: 34
      -1
      I support - only hardcore sample of the "Great White Fleet" laughing
  • Kudrevkn
    Kudrevkn April 4 2016 13: 55
    0
    To mister anodonta! I took the number "34 mlnu br. Reg. Tons." from K. Denitz's memoirs "10 years and 20 days", where it is stated that "2759 units or 14 tons were sunk only in the South Atlantic? And then, according to the Allies, where are the losses of the USSR and the USA, as well as other theater of operations and sunken ships in ports or from aviation, NK and for other reasons did not enter!
  • savage1976
    savage1976 April 4 2016 14: 43
    0
    The article is really good, there is something to think about. And let's think about the North Seas. How many icebreakers do the United States have? I will answer, 2 diesel-electric. And how long is the northern sea covered in ice? 8 months. Excuse me, will their ships and aircraft carriers in the northern seas winter in the ice? Well then, by spring, their entire fleet will be at the bottom of the sea without torpedoes and the efforts of our military. How many icebreakers do Russia have? My answer is about 50 atomic and diesel-electric. It seems to me that the average icebreaker in the class is something like a destroyer. It turns out where the country's resources went.
    1. Andrey77
      Andrey77 April 4 2016 15: 01
      0
      So what? If there are no icebreakers in the USA, this only indicates a lack of interest in the northern latitudes.
      Cost is generally a separate song. We have been commercially only recently started to build. While US Arly Burke type EMs are baked like pies, it's all worked out.
  • DM51
    DM51 April 4 2016 14: 59
    +2
    Quote: Zero Nil Seventh
    Quote: DM51
    Oil prices fell because someone decided so

    Lord, are the Rothschilds again? It was they, scum, who came up with horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing in order to harm Russia.
    Quote: DM51
    someone does not want to lose money and compensates for the loss of profit in foreign markets

    But this is exactly the Rothschilds.
    Quote: DM51
    and why the government does not cut it - this is another question

    The same. Rothschilds!

    The irony failed. Read what percentage of oil production is shale oil in the total volume of production in the world and what is the current position of companies engaged in "shale" in connection with the fall in oil prices and what environmental harm this technology of hydrocarbon production is doing. Or are you seriously thinking that the 6th US Fleet is to blame for the collapse of oil prices ?!
  • okroshka79
    okroshka79 April 4 2016 17: 46
    -1
    How tired of this scribe-praising American Navy with his comparisons! May the United States not fight Russia until it is sure that not a single Russian nuclear charge will fall on an American head. But so far and even in the most distant future, the Americans have not the slightest chance of such a balance of power. Therefore, there is nothing to compare cold with hard. Well, for us the most humane and peace-loving slogan in the world should be in action: "Si vis pacem, para bellum". What, I believe, is what the Russian leadership is doing. And, as the Syrian events show, not without success.
    1. Serg65
      Serg65 April 4 2016 18: 58
      +2
      Quote: okroshka79
      How tired of this companion-boomer of the American Navy with his comparisons!

      Welcome namesake drinks , a long time ago you did not appear on these pages or I just did not notice smile
      Regarding the borosopisator .... I have one friend, as he read a book about ships with aplomb, he said that now he knows everything about ships bully.
      1. okroshka79
        okroshka79 April 4 2016 23: 06
        0
        Good day, Sergei! Frankly, I come here only to read military news and historical stories like yours. What is my frank respect! True, sometimes I break off into articles like Mr. Kaptsov. The nerves are not the same. Everyone went to anti-aircraft missile training at one time. I would like to take this opportunity to comment that the shooting down of the "Elusive" US aircraft in 1974, which you reported not very long ago, is a bike. By the nature of my service, I would certainly know about this case. Although, somewhere in the aforementioned times, information slipped through that some Arab "thirty bis" 37-mm machine gun 70-K, indeed, shot down an Israeli "Phantom". Sincerely. SP
        1. Serg65
          Serg65 April 5 2016 06: 33
          +1
          Quote: okroshka79
          the downing of the "Elusive" US aircraft in 1974, which you recently reported, is a bike

          Hello Sergey. It is quite possible, but I also heard this story from the former chief officer of the Kavkaz Kavkaz BRK Parfyonov V.S., he also told that the ZIF-75 gunner received 10 days of leave for excellent shooting, and the commander was reprimanded and demoted. The "elusive" did not go to combat for a long time after that, and only the new commander of the captri, Volynsky, managed to return the DBK to the 5th squadron. I served with Parfyonov for 2,5 years, an excellent commander, I began my service as a "boy with a bow". laughing It is not strange, too, with respect to the joint venture.
  • Taoist
    Taoist April 4 2016 22: 01
    +1
    Quote: NEXUS
    In order to drown an aircraft carrier you need from 12 to 20 hits of anti-ship missiles of the Granite class.


    Listen, where does this figure come from? In the textbook it was that for guaranteed defeat of the AUG, an outfit was needed just in 18-20 heavy anti-ship missiles (i.e. this is the total number of missiles in a salvo) By the way, on Anteys, they also had 24 (for two half-salvos). The outfit was taken into account that up to 90% of missiles would be intercepted - i.e. a maximum of 2-3 missiles will reach the target from the salvo. Actually. Those. in order to guarantee that the aircraft carrier was covered, 2-3 hits were required, but not 12-20 ... In general, this completely correlates with the known power of the warhead and the well-known facts about the survivability of these ships.
    Yes, of course, there is still a moment of chance, but in my opinion not a single famous ship could withstand a couple of ton bombs ... And then, at this weight, there are also two speeds of sound ....
    1. NEXUS
      NEXUS April 4 2016 22: 25
      +1
      Quote: Taoist
      Listen, where does this figure come from? In the textbook, it was that for a guaranteed defeat of AUG, an outfit of just 18-20 heavy anti-ship missiles was required

      Yes, not the AUG, but the aircraft carrier itself. The AUG includes:
      The flagship aircraft carrier of the Nimitz-type nuclear power plant (or Enterprise) with the deck-based aviation regiment based on it (60–80 aircraft).
      Air defense division of the group - 1-2 KR URO type "Ticonderoga"
      The division’s PLO division is 3-4 Arly Burke type EM UROs with depth charges and torpedoes for combating submarines, as well as (part of the ships) with Tomahawk missile launchers on board.
      Multipurpose submarine division - 1-2 submarines of the Los Angeles type with torpedo armament and Tomahawk
      Division of supply vessels - 1-2 transport of the Spley type
      Navy OAP - [1] up to 60 US Navy aircraft, reduced to strike AE, AE DRLO, AE PLO, AE VTS and others. The Navy AAP is a separate military unit of the US Navy.
      To begin with, none of our orders will simply be allowed to approach the launch range of our anti-ship missiles. The radius of action of the same AUG air wing is 600-800 km (presumably for the X-47V-1000km).
      RCC Granite is by far the most advanced RCC in the world, but even with a warhead containing 500 kilograms of powerful explosives, the TNT equivalent of which, according to various sources, is from 1000 to 1500 kilograms, (different numbers for the destruction of an aircraft carrier-8-12,12 are called, 20-10). Granites will have to deal not only with missile defense missile defense but also with electronic warfare systems and with the wing itself. And now the question doesn’t matter how many of our anti-ship missiles break through the layered missile defense missile defense (numbers from 15 to XNUMX% of the entire salvo are called), which will be with our order, even if we assume that our RK will be able to produce a volley of Granites?
      1. KaPToC
        KaPToC April 4 2016 22: 47
        0
        How do you like to count the tomahawks, but they will not participate in the naval battle because they cannot hit surface moving targets.
        Cruise missiles will intercept two duty units of two aircraft each.
        They wrote to you above, Antey has two half-salvos, the first is covered with an aircraft carrier, the second, if the aircraft carrier is hit, they hit an order.
        1. NEXUS
          NEXUS April 4 2016 22: 56
          +1
          Quote: KaPToC
          They wrote to you above, Antey has two half-salvos, the first is covered with an aircraft carrier, the second, if the aircraft carrier is hit, they hit an order.

          How can it not reach you that they stupidly will not allow our warrant to approach the launch range of the Granites to AUG. In the open ocean, in fact, for our RK, AUGs are invulnerable, as it is not offensive to admit.
          1. KaPToC
            KaPToC April 5 2016 01: 26
            0
            Quote: NEXUS
            How can it not reach you that you stupidly will not allow our warrant to approach the range of Granit launch to AUG.

            Sorry, you're talking about a submarine warrant laughing ? I’m sure they can get close to the salvo.
            1. Andrey77
              Andrey77 April 8 2016 09: 12
              0
              APRK order does not go. Our APRK will "hang" two Los Angeles-class nuclear submarines from the AUG guard. If anything, the third of the free swimming will be added. Plus PLO aviation with AUG from above. They won't let you open the torpedo tube cover, I'm not talking about missiles.
      2. Taoist
        Taoist April 4 2016 23: 11
        +1
        It’s immediately noticeable that you didn’t read the textbooks ... In general, no one ever planned to attack the AUG in the open sea. Well, our Navy has always had different tasks. It is clear that a real battle is not a textbook; well, this is true in both directions.
        I won't talk about it now, I don't have all the information - and a lot has already flowed under the bridge. But always on the attacking (and therefore approaching our shores within the range of its aviation) AUG, the strike was planned extremely comprehensively. With the use of MRAK, surface and submarine forces. With the obligatory separation of forces and assets, with the "saturation" of the air defense order with heterogeneous targets ... I do not think that the situation has changed a lot now. The level of capabilities (even purely quantitative) is now certainly not the same as in the USSR (and here one freak still offered the remaining "emki" to be melted down) But this rather only lowers the threshold for using nuclear weapons. Despite the fact that the AUG in general, it has a very modest strike potential (relatively) and in the range of active action of coastal aviation inevitably grabs a lull ...
        1. NEXUS
          NEXUS April 4 2016 23: 17
          +1
          Quote: Taoist
          I won't talk about it now, I don't have all the information - and a lot has already flowed under the bridge. But always on the attacking (and therefore approaching our shores within the range of its aviation) AUG, the strike was planned extremely comprehensively. With the use of MRAC, surface and submarine forces. With the obligatory separation of forces and assets, with the "saturation" of the air defense order with heterogeneous targets ... I do not think that the situation has changed a lot now.

          This is understandable, which is complex ... but the mattresses do not push the AUG to the shores. Russia is not Ganduras with the Papuans. It’s clear from our shores that they will drown this whole gop company in minutes.
  • Tektor
    Tektor April 4 2016 22: 22
    0
    To figure out whose fleet is stronger than ours or the states, you need to consider the most likely scenario of the battle. Let's say it will be an active defense. Those. the main task is defense, when inflicting possible harm on the adversary. To understand whether we can withstand the defense, we need to compare the US offensive potential and our ability to neutralize it. I believe that our ships will be protected from guided missile weapons by electronic warfare equipment, especially in the coastal zone. From here, the most difficult thing for us will be the reflection of torpedoes, HARMs and free-fall bombs. It is clear that the latter type can be successfully used only when the ammunition of air defense systems is exhausted. The success of the fight against the torpedo threat, I would rate as the most problematic, because there are probably specific means of struggle against HARMs, because This type of rocket has been used for a long time: imitators of false targets, for example. The probability of standing in the defense turns out to be quite tolerable, but only in the case of an immediate response to the carriers of weapons of destruction, i.e. from the effectiveness of the active part. And to assess the effectiveness of our means of destruction, you need to know their exact characteristics and the ability of the command to promptly issue command and control orders with sufficient accuracy. If the admirals will not chew snot, then for us everything can end with small losses, because even the well-known performance characteristics of the same anti-ship missiles suggest that in the worst case scenario, only every third of them will achieve the goal. The whole question is the training of command personnel, and the speed of issuing orders to launch anti-ship missiles, and the rise of aviation and coastal forces of the fleet. IMHO.
    1. Andrey77
      Andrey77 April 8 2016 09: 16
      0
      I believe that our ships will be protected from guided missile weapons by electronic warfare equipment, especially in the coastal zone.
      --
      When launching 10-20 missiles - yes, when launching 100-200 - no. And with a big mess, 500 will be launched.
  • vvp2412
    vvp2412 April 4 2016 22: 46
    +1
    Kaptsov's article ?! I didn’t even read! immediately minus .... It seems that he writes his pamphlets only in order to arrange a srach in the comments!
    1. bit.baytov
      bit.baytov April 7 2016 20: 59
      0
      The essence of this article is reconnaissance provocative. If we don’t learn new things from our opponents, we’ll try to scare
  • jonht
    jonht April 5 2016 01: 10
    0
    It is not right to compare ours and their fleets, the goals and objectives of the fleets are different, and therefore the implementation of these goals and objectives requires different solutions. If we walk from the fact that the Nazis have such an overwhelming advantage in missiles and carriers, then some of those present on the site may already be packing their bags and throwing them to the west .... The Russian people do not give a shit about the advantage, we are fighting for the truth and the task of capturing someone else’s territory is not worth it, but we can even turn a radioactive wasteland ..... For this, they invest as much as possible in modernizing the strategic missile forces, and rightly so. A fleet is needed and it is being built, but we don’t have colonies and we don’t need to keep them like fascists.
  • Sarma
    Sarma April 5 2016 04: 25
    +1
    Well, not everything is so simple. 1) At present, the Virginia-type nuclear submarines have a very serious drawback, they are very noisy, due to the fact that their plating is not of high quality and the hull covering hangs in rags, knocks on the hulls and makes noise in the water. `` Virginia '' will approach the enemy submarine for a shot, it will be detected first, which means it will be destroyed. The only type of US nuclear submarine that poses a very serious threat in a duel situation is the Seawulf, although they are not new, but very successful and high-quality submarines. Fortunately for those who do not want to go under the United States, the United States has only three such submarines: 1997,1998, 2005 and 2 built. 3) The United States has big problems with LCS-type ships, everything is damp and constantly breaks down, starting with engines and ending with combat systems. All that the United States really has are destroyers of the Arlie Burke type, there are many of them and they are well armed. 18) US aircraft carriers are of course serious, but only if the United States and the Russian Federation begin to fight, for example, for Cuba, and exclusively with conventional weapons, without using The clash of carrier-based and ground fighters will predictably end in favor of ground fighters if the battles go beyond the Crimea, for example. I advise those who doubt to compare the capabilities of carrier-based F-15 and ground F-XNUMX. Of course, the United States can transfer its ground fighters to the EU, but this already another story that has nothing to do with aircraft carriers.
  • Kudrevkn
    Kudrevkn April 5 2016 09: 16
    -1
    The above new article "China Wrecks American Aircraft Carriers" fully answers all your questions, dear sofa strategists and tactics! Read more, you will be smarter and you will not need to ask stupid questions and "measure h ... after physical education in the locker room, who has more?"
  • Idiot
    Idiot April 5 2016 12: 20
    -2
    The weakness of the Russian Navy, declared by the author of the article, did not interfere with the latter in organizing the "Syrian Express" and performing air defense functions in Latakia. The number of ships and weapon systems are secondary. The country's military and political authority is the backbone of the state's true sovereignty. And domination at sea lies in the fact that the most battered barge under the flag of the Russian Federation will be untouchable for anyone. The author again invites us to compare with the United States by writing, instead of measuring intellect. Apparently, it is closer to him.
  • Div Divich
    Div Divich April 5 2016 15: 12
    +1
    The Russian fleet is much more modest, and many worn ships.

    The last modernization of the fleet got across the throat, because they wanted to accelerate the modernization at the expense of foreign manufacturers, as a result it turned out that these foreign manufacturers on the contrary slowed down the modernization. Lesson for the future.

    In order not to build one ship for 10 years, we need the development of several universal platforms and modular assembly.

    Landing ships - cargo delivery
    Destroyers - heavily armed ships
    Submarines - Intelligence

    Here are three main platforms that can be the foundation of the fleet, for example 70% of the ships. In addition, they are still highly specialized to do.

    Now there is no systematic approach, generals like children go to exhibitions and order toys they like without thinking about what problems they will face in the future.
  • abc_alex
    abc_alex April 5 2016 22: 02
    +1
    I never thought that I would see such a frank example of "liberal analytics" on this site. With all the signs. The feeling is that the author just wanted to make a smarter hawk at Russia and he did it under the guise of comparing what he himself undertook not to compare.

    But if the fleets of the United States and the Russian Federation really can’t compare the loophole, then what exactly can be compared are the military budgets.
    US direct military spending in 2000-2015 did not fall below $ 278 billion and this year amounted to $ 557 billion. A rough estimate is about 400 faces per year, which amounted to $ 6.26 trillion for the period. Let me remind you, Mr. Kaptsov, that the entire program of re-equipment of the Russian Federation from 2011 to 2020 is 19 trillion rubles. which at the rate of 2011 is equal to 633 billion dollars.
    If someone, for example, the author of the article, is not clear, then US ANNUAL EXPENSES for the army are comparable to the entire rearmament program Russia for 10 years.


    I also want to remind the author of the article that the time frame should be operated at least somewhat meaningfully. Why is the period taken from the year 2000? Indeed, until 2008, the Russian Federation increased and did not modernize its aircraft and navy. The rearmament program was announced in 2008. Moreover, the first stages of the program were aimed at resolving the social problems of military personnel and re-equipping defense industry enterprises.

    So, dear Mr. Kaptsov, if you undertake analytics, it is better not to do this.
  • Old old
    Old old April 5 2016 22: 12
    0
    Some kind of research of fleets "in a vacuum". The capabilities of NAVI in the Northern theater of operations (and not the greenhouse conditions of the usual theater of operations) are severely limited.
    The dependence of the fleets on the space constellation of navigation and reconnaissance satellites has not been considered. Our compass and sextant can be used, and the Americans? Judging by the special forces competition, the Yankees without a GPS receiver are like blind kittens and map orientation for them is atavism.
    The saturation of radio electronics implies the widespread use of electronic warfare forces and means and counteraction to electronic warfare. This aspect is not taken into account and is not considered at all.
  • complete zero
    complete zero April 6 2016 09: 43
    -2
    The USA is a naval power, all the best is concentrated in the FLEET and arguing about the strength of the Fleets (it is stupid to compare them) .. there is only one BUT (and it is serious) .. these very small boats of the RIVER-SEA class ... well, shove your frigate in any kind of "stinking river" near Mukhoska? ... and our "boats" are able to appear practically anywhere in the country, having a RANGE of calibers 1500-2000 km ... still look at all these Nimitz (uimits) .. the geography of the Country is good for us ... why hell should we get involved in the Fleet race, if we get ALL of these very calibers out of any practical puddle
    1. bit.baytov
      bit.baytov April 7 2016 21: 03
      0
      Cool thinking "complete zero".
    2. Andrey77
      Andrey77 April 8 2016 09: 21
      0
      The idea of ​​a "mosquito" fleet is as old as the world. America was not discovered.
  • bddrus
    bddrus April 8 2016 14: 38
    0
    did anyone talk about the comparability of fleets? or the author himself came up with and overcame his notion?
    We need to have a decent fleet - we don’t need to catch up with the amers. Only the vigorous loaf remains unfortunately
  • Div Divich
    Div Divich April 11 2016 14: 53
    +1
    It is not only the amount of funding, but also the organization of the shipbuilding process.
    We go to the site of the shipbuilding corporation and see many different projects, and not universal platforms on the basis of which ships optimized for certain tasks are made ...
    As a result, we get an engine for one ship, we order it here for the other, for someone else, and it’s more profitable to develop our own two manufacturers of ship engines, we have no money for them - there is no money to develop and test new engines .. .
    1. Andrey77
      Andrey77 April 12 2016 11: 04
      0
      Having one or two manufacturers is a huge risk. On a rake with turbines have already stepped.
  • arsen69
    arsen69 14 May 2016 17: 11
    0
    The fact that updating the Navy today is the most problematic area in the construction of our army is not in doubt, and, of course, this situation should be corrected as soon as possible. However, the author in his review, intentionally or not, did not mention a number of obvious aspects that significantly change the overall picture.
    1. The Russian fleet does not need to be constantly present in all areas of the oceans, therefore, it is not necessary that its number be comparable to the American one.
    2. Due to the fact that the American Navy has such a need, there are big problems with the costs of its maintenance and support (especially at the prices that exist in the American military-industrial complex for everything related to army or naval supply), and this problem is very acute even in peacetime - what can we say about some kind of military action. And it will not be possible to correct this situation - the US spending on defense in general is such that even the "dollar printer" threatens to break down, and therefore are steadily decreasing from year to year.
    3. The military concept of the United States itself does not imply significant losses - it is impossible to imagine that the US Navy will break through to some target, losing frigates and destroyers. The loss of even one large ship, which means several hundred lives of American sailors, is considered an unacceptable scenario. In other words, the fleet is large, but seriously fighting, without having multiple and overwhelming advantages, is not ready.
    4. Russia has a significant advantage in anti-ship missiles of various bases, which, in many ways, neutralizes the quantitative superiority of the US Navy. And with the adoption of the hypersonic Zircons, the importance of this factor in the ratio of naval forces in the world will increase many times over.