Military Review

Russia is increasing its presence at sea

35
The recently appointed commander-in-chief of the Russian Navy, Admiral Vladimir Korolev, stated that the military composition of the Russian Navy fleet Until 2018, replenished with more than 50 ships. “I would like to emphasize that in three years - from 2013 to 2016 - we added 42 combat ships to the permanent readiness forces. Between 2016 and 2018 we plan to additionally add more than 50 ships to the Navy. This will strengthen the groupings , including interspecific, in almost all strategic areas, "said the commander.


Russia is increasing its presence at sea

Heavy nuclear missile cruiser "Peter the Great". Photo: Lev Fedoseev / TASS

What directions will cover the Russian fleet? In fact, there are only two countries in the world - Russia and the United States, which are able to ensure their strategic interests in the entire ocean area. However, approaches to ensuring their interests are different. The United States relies on carrier strike groups (AUG), Russia is actively updating the submarine fleet and is adopting new missiles.

As a result of the Second World War, it became clear that from now on, not large artillery ships, but aircraft carriers would play the leading role in the sea. The United States has become the world leader in the number of large aircraft carriers, and this palm is still held. In the Soviet Union, it was decided not to deploy its own program of building aircraft carriers, since it was clear that for ships of this class there are not, or very few, convenient bases from which it would be possible to immediately go into the world's oceans, bypassing the internal seas. To achieve parity with the Americans, it was decided to develop the construction of the submarine fleet. It was an "asymmetric response." The large number of Soviet submarines did not allow NATO anti-submarine forces to track all their movements simultaneously.

Despite some superiority that the fleet of NATO and the United States possessed over the USSR, the ships of the likely enemy felt themselves "under the gun" in all oceans. The global positioning of the USSR fleet was not accidental: the country made it clear that the US fleet is not invulnerable. Today's tasks of the Navy remain the same as during the Cold War - ensuring the security of the state and demonstrating its presence in the same waters as the US Navy.


Missile cruiser "Moscow". Photo: Russian Look / Server Amzayev

Judging by the fleet construction program, aircraft carriers in the Russian Navy is not yet a place. Instead, they bet on large surface missile ships. Reequipment by radio-electronic systems is planned on three cruisers of the 1164 project: “Varyag” (flagship of the Pacific Fleet), “Marshal Ustinov” and “Moscow” (flagship of the Black Sea Fleet). The atomic cruiser of the 1144 project "Admiral Nakhimov" is being upgraded and is scheduled to be commissioned by the year of 2018. Another most likely candidate for retrofitting is the Peter the Great cruiser. Today, Peter the Great’s main caliber TAKR are 20 missiles of the Granit complex, the main purpose of which is to combat large surface targets. Stated that the change to "Granite" may come hypersonic rockets "Zircon".

"Zircon" allows you to play a proactive and hit the target much earlier than the means of counteraction are ready. Even if the launch is detected, the preparation of anti-missile systems will take a long time. “A lot” in this case is just a few seconds, which is just not enough. A number of sources in the armed forces reported on the on-site testing of the latest Russian hypersonic missiles, which can be mounted both on surface ships and on submarines. This is a new project of the multi-purpose nuclear submarine "Husky", which is being developed by the St. Petersburg design bureau "Malachite".


Submarine "Vladimir Monomah". Photo: Lev Fedoseev / TASS

However, surface ships are not the main carriers of nuclear weapons. The underwater component of the nuclear shield’s missiles is represented by the submarines 667BDR Kalmar, 667BDRM Dolphin and Borey 955. Before 2020, it is planned to build eight "Boreev". Three ships have already entered the fleet - the lead ship, Yuri Dolgoruky, became part of the Northern Fleet, the Alexander Nevsky and Vladimir Monomakh set off to serve in the Pacific Fleet.

The submarines of the 885 Yasen project, which are planned to be equipped with torpedoes with a nuclear warhead, must support the actions of the Boreyev. These submarines appear to be the only representatives of the class of "hunters" for the submarine of a potential enemy.


Boat "Varshavyanka". Photo: Yuri Smithyuk / TASS

For action in the inland seas, it is planned to upgrade and strengthen the grouping of non-nuclear submarines. For the Black Sea Fleet, six diesel-electric submarines of the 636.3 Varshavyanka project are currently under construction. The first two submarines have already been transferred to the fleet, the delivery of the third and fourth is planned before the end of this year. New words should be the boat project 677 "Lada", which is supposed to use a promising air-independent power plant. Projects of boats with a similar engine are today in the fleets of European states - France, Germany, the Netherlands. Work is underway in this direction in the United States. Such equipment will significantly improve the fighting qualities of non-nuclear submarines due to the absence of the need for regular ascent to recharge the batteries. At the same time, this will allow the boats to maintain their compact size compared to nuclear submarines and to maintain high stealth rates.

A separate topic was the unsuccessful purchase of French Mistral helicopter carriers, which were transferred to Egypt. According to representatives of the defense ministry, the development of their own helicopter carrier projects has begun. Actually, it’s about the fact that Russia is quite able to do without such global acquisitions of combat surface ships, even when everything was fine with the deal. Obviously, the new helicopter carriers will also go into service with the Black Sea Fleet.
Author:
Originator:
http://www.utro.ru/articles/2016/04/25/1279861.shtml
35 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. bya965
    bya965 April 30 2016 05: 47
    +7
    The storm subsided. The red rays of the setting sun made their way in some places
    through the clouds. The crimson gleams snaked on the wet deck.
    A difficult rescue lift maneuver has just been completed
    boats. The people gathered on the deck respectfully parted before
    six Russian sailors whom the senior officer ordered to change clothes.
    After some time, the officers surrounded Kettering, who returned
    from the commander:
    - Well, what are the Russians?
    “Sleeping,” Kettering smiled and briefly told the amazing
    the story of six sailors from Kotlas.
    - This is the story! cried Lieutenant Noyes. - Six
    "steam" sailors - and coped with such a sailing ship! And we thought
    Russian land nation.
    A long silence, noting the feat of the Russians, was violated by a high
    the officer:
    “Kettering, and the end of your story?” He coincided so wonderfully with
    the advent of the ship that I am ready to think ...
    “You were not mistaken,” Kettering answered quickly. - Fate is already
    finished for me. That brig, called Niort, was French
    ship, but the team was Russian, and led the brig after death
    French captain Russian assistant. Russian sailors showed then
    amazing art. They managed to save part of the crew of the Fairy Drags,
    including the authors of the report, and successfully deal with the cyclone,
    despite the rough rigging and awkward appearance of the brig. Starting this
    story, I wanted to show you that there is a nation, sea abilities
    which is often underestimated ...
    “Enough, Kettering!” - interrupted the high officer. - Are you really
    decide to put the Russians next to the British? We created the whole culture
    navigation, the science of the sea, all naval traditions ... How can
    to make continental people so capable of
    marine art?
    - It seems to me that the point here is in the special properties of the Russian people. Of
    of all European nations, Russian was formed on the most extensive
    territory, moreover with a harsh climate. This hardy people got
    from fate a reward - abilities whose strength, it seems to me, lies in the fact that
    Russians always strive to find the root of things, get to the core
    the causes of every phenomenon. We can say that they see nature deeper
    us. So it is with marine art: Russian will soon understand the language
    sea ​​and wind, and copes even where centuries of experience pass.
    “But ...” the high officer began.
    “But,” interrupted Kettering, “think of our meeting!” We have
    there’s still a lot of time to end the argument before returning to England.
    At dawn, Fireless stopped a steamer sailing from England to the USSR,
    and six Soviet sailors continued their vacation already on their way to
    Homeland.

    Great Russian writer, science fiction
    1944
    http://books.rusf.ru/unzip/add-on/xussr_gk/efremi25.htm?1/4
    Ivan Efremov
  2. Valery Valery
    Valery Valery April 30 2016 07: 14
    -9
    Alas, we are behind! The main force at sea, oddly enough, is aviation: assault, anti-submarine, destructive. Therefore, we need airbases and aircraft carriers!
    1. Gennady85
      Gennady85 April 30 2016 15: 43
      0
      It is foolish to reason like that.
      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        Andrei from Chelyabinsk April 30 2016 21: 54
        +5
        Quote: Gennady85
        It is foolish to reason like that.

        And what's the stupid thing? :) It is aviation today that rules the ball at sea and will rule in the foreseeable future. Ignoring the obvious facts is really stupid.
        1. Idiot
          Idiot 20 May 2016 16: 44
          0
          Aircraft carriers, like a huge fleet, are needed by the United States to control the world's sea trade routes. Airplanes do not reach under their own power from the territory of the United States, for example, to the Suez Canal. Two-thirds of humanity lives on the coasts of seas and oceans, which again justifies the presence of a huge fleet and mobile airfields. In the end, the American dollar is still alive because in every, the most dirty port of the world, no, no, but a mattress flag flashes. Why is the Russian aircraft carrier fleet? We do not pretend to be a planetary communicator and we do not need global control over the Somali pirates. Russia is the only self-sufficient transcontinental state in the world (in terms of minerals and other nishtyaks). Any mainland airfield, like a combat aircraft taking off from a full-fledged runway, is preferable to a floating one: the airfield cannot be sunk, and the aircraft flies farther and carries more than the deck. The Russian Navy has only one combat mission - to enable our SSBNs to shoot at an adversary. All!!! There were no other tasks when the third world war began. And if it has not begun and, I hope, never will, then the power of our Navy (and, accordingly, the authority of the state) is sufficient, the inviolability of the ships and ships of the Syrian Express proves this. And let the most powerful and exceptional servicemen chase the Papuans and puff their cheeks, and at the same time, let them organize demographic surges in the Baltic ...
      2. The comment was deleted.
  3. kostya-petrov
    kostya-petrov April 30 2016 07: 38
    +4
    The first two submarines have already been transferred to the fleet, the delivery of the third and fourth is planned before the end of this year.

    If you are doing similar material, then write correctly:
    Four diesel-electric submarines have been added to the fleet, of which two have already arrived at a permanent base.

  4. Scharnhorst
    Scharnhorst April 30 2016 08: 29
    +2
    I agree with the main message of the article - it is necessary to update and build the fleet. Stretch your legs over your clothes! The Soviet Union, as in a cartoon about a golden antelope, suffocated from the unbearable exertion of forces on the military-industrial complex. The navy still lives on the fruits of those efforts 25 years later. History tends to repeat itself. The first visible successes, rather modest, and then already turned the head of the hurray-patriots! Ambitious projects for the construction of aircraft carriers, helicopter carriers will suffer the fate of projects 23 and 69 of Stalin's super-battleships, if the country does not first build an economic base, and the military-political leadership does not justify and convince the society of the need to have such ships in the fleet. "There are three useless things in the world: the Great Wall of China, the Egyptian pyramids and .... further in the text, there is no need to remake Japanese folk wisdom in the Russian manner.
    1. rubidiy
      rubidiy April 30 2016 19: 35
      +2
      as the saying goes "if a person is, then this is for a long time." good Learn to use the brain, and then all this substance, which you fill the expanses of the Internet itself will leave your body through a hole specially provided for by nature, and not through what you are currently using.
    2. Idiot
      Idiot 20 May 2016 17: 01
      0
      You, a thoughtful thinker, would not discuss what you do not understand. The USSR died not because it "suffocated from the unbearable exertion of forces on the military-industrial complex," as you say, but because the so-called "elite", taking advantage of the current geopolitical situation and, with the colossal support of our sworn English-speaking friends, carried out the final part the so-called plan "Lyaute". By the way, I am still amazed at their genetic stupidity - why not finished off? .. And now, thank God, it's too late! The time will come, my German friend, and we will build aircraft carriers named after Comrade Stalin, as well as a cruiser named after Comrade Beria. By the way, as far as I remember in the fairy tale you mentioned, the greedy uncle died not from excessive exertion, but from hunger, because everything he touched turned into gold. So this is about mattress mats - only they love it. I sincerely wish them the same fate. And others like them ...
  5. sa-ag
    sa-ag April 30 2016 09: 41
    +3
    "..." Zircon "allows you to play ahead and hit the target much earlier than the countermeasures are ready. Even if the launch is detected, the preparation of interceptor missiles will take a long time." A lot "in this case is just a few seconds, which just not enough. "

    Again, the caps are flying, the rocket will fly at high altitude at hypersonic speed, and the AWAC will detect this event from the moment the rocket launches and reaches altitude and transmits data over the network, then there will be a missile shot at the meeting point
    1. Botanologist
      Botanologist April 30 2016 15: 24
      +1
      Quote: sa-ag
      AWAC, on the other hand, will detect this event from the moment of launch and rocket climb and transmit data over the network, then there will be a missile shot at the meeting point


      Theoretically, any missile can be knocked down. But in practice, even during exercises on a single rocket, they beat from all the barrels and calibers, and it flies. And this is not only with us, but in all fleets.
      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        Andrei from Chelyabinsk April 30 2016 22: 05
        +1
        Quote: Botanologist
        But in practice, even during exercises on a single rocket, they beat from all the barrels and calibers, and it flies.

        You are right in many ways. True EMNIP 5 anti-ship missiles from different sides and different heights, our KUG of 2 ships shot down during exercises.
        The most painful issue is target designation. You need to know where to shoot the missiles.
      2. Navigator
        Navigator April 30 2016 23: 11
        +4
        It all depends on the preparedness of the crew. How many people were present at firing on a single rocket, no one hit on it from all trunks, they always managed with one complex and shot her down. if other air defense systems fired, it was only so that it could be said about the integrated use of air defense systems. Another thing is that all firing is conducted on old missiles with a speed of no more than 300 m / s. It will be difficult to say how it will be in real life. What we can bring down and what not.
      3. Idiot
        Idiot 20 May 2016 17: 06
        0
        As in the Soviet cartoon about the meteorite "and he flies" ...
    2. Idiot
      Idiot 20 May 2016 17: 05
      0
      The hypersonic rocket will fly in a plasma cloud and will not be detected by modern AWACS. Regarding the effectiveness of American interceptor missiles, I would like to give advice - don't flatter yourself, don't go to the American fleet - it's not worth the "green card". Russian missiles and American ships are made for each other ...
  6. kepmor
    kepmor April 30 2016 10: 08
    +2
    If our rulers were really puzzled by the most important problem of the Navy - the lack of modern ships, then the question naturally arises - why do they give up the power of our not very powerful USC to foreign contracts ?!
    Now hurray-patriots will shout in unison that this is an influx of currency into the country ... of course it is, BUT Russia needs modern ships "yesterday"!
    These capacities themselves are absolutely necessary - why arm the Indians and Vietnamese, when their ass is naked, they are "brothers for centuries" to us - enough already "took these lessons at school"!
    And the money from their orders is not so huge, if you wish, you can easily "find internal reserves" and inside the country for a good cause - to prohibit exchange currency speculation - capital outflow over the hill will drop significantly!
    1. Idiot
      Idiot 20 May 2016 17: 15
      0
      Because, my foolish friend, these are our few allies in the region, and also because, due to the lack of part of the sovereignty of the Russian Federation (we have the right to print as many rubles as we earned US dollars), we need foreign exchange earnings in our economy, contracts - then the dollar. And also because by selling our weapons to these countries, we attach them to ourselves both economically (joint production, licenses, maintenance, staff training, which inevitably changes the mentality of the trained soldier) and politically.
  7. igorka357
    igorka357 April 30 2016 13: 28
    +4
    Why, 42 warships in three years, did he count with all the patrol boats? Che then make people laugh, I understand the fleet and the army are being restored, but why should the people have brains?
    1. Idiot
      Idiot 20 May 2016 17: 21
      0
      You, along the way, Igorka, will never become Igor, and even more so no one will know your patronymic. As the theater begins with a coat rack, so the restoration of the fleet begins with "boats". Before the battleship is brought to the base, there will be tugs and other vessels very necessary for the combat mission. It is also very important what functions the "boat" will perform and what it will be armed with.
  8. King, just king
    King, just king April 30 2016 13: 50
    +3
    ".... that in three years - from 2013 to 2016 - we have added 42 warships to the permanent readiness forces."

    And hop-hop in these boats, SKR-ah, that is, frigates, MRK - ships of the 1st rank, the real 1st, such that Burke, or was the Congo frightened there? As, Admiral Korolev?
    Everything is clear, there is no money, we are building what they give, at least the protection of the water area. Just don’t have to cheek about strategic directions.
    The fleet does not and does not see the concept that the main thing. There are no obvious opponents, all, b, partners. There is no psychological orientation towards the enemy.

    Yes, and ships .... yesterday, unfortunately.
    1. Idiot
      Idiot 20 May 2016 17: 21
      0
      How much is divorced here, probably spring exacerbation.
  9. Senior manager
    Senior manager April 30 2016 14: 50
    -1
    But it’s interesting to know how long the striped AUG will last on their computer simulation based on the available forces in Russia? Such scenarios are played out, and since the striped do not get involved in a fight, then the simulation results do not suit them. Although the reason is rather different: a little fight will quickly grow into a big war. And to pull the Fleet out of the whole military machine is somehow not quite right, no matter how modern it may be. They are fighting (so far they are only holding back) all the same, all the Russian Armed Forces.
    1. lelikas
      lelikas April 30 2016 17: 18
      +2
      If the Yankees suddenly want to snuggle up to our shore, then it will not last long, but in the open sea - quite the opposite.
    2. Idiot
      Idiot 20 May 2016 17: 26
      0
      AUG will last as long as it needs to be. Unfortunately, today we do not have the means of guaranteed destruction of the AUG. But here the United States itself can destroy our Navy with guarantee, it exists for this. So, I believe, the Russian Navy is not inferior in effectiveness to the most exclusive fleet.
  10. King, just king
    King, just king April 30 2016 16: 52
    +1
    And to pull the Fleet out of the whole military machine is somehow not quite right, no matter how modern it may be. They are fighting (while they are only holding back) all the same, all the Russian Armed Forces. [/ Quote]


    Absolutely correctly spelled. The fleet by itself, even with 10 AUGs, even with a ship of 1000 units, will not play against a large country, even if it (like Yugoslavia) is torn apart by a civil war. There is no surface ocean fleet in the Russian Federation so far, but this is not the main thing. The main ICBM in ground mines and in submarine mines, they then ensure the security of the state.
  11. 39GB
    39GB April 30 2016 17: 13
    +4
    Maybe the author raves, maybe the commander-in-chief with arithmetic is difficult, maybe the glory of Hans-Christian Andersen does not give rest to both. I don’t know. 42 warships are already in operation (the Newest) and another 50 will be operational in two years. And where did plasticine come from? Apparently all watercraft are combat, up to and including boats. In real life there is a fleet, but small and very very old ....
    1. Idiot
      Idiot 20 May 2016 17: 27
      0
      Not older than American.
  12. okroshka79
    okroshka79 April 30 2016 17: 35
    +3
    Another one-day admiral. Well, our fleet is not lucky! Every new year is a new commander-in-chief of the Navy. And as there were some "grimaces and jumps", and continue to remain. For three years - as many as forty-two warships! Well, I would say more modestly - "units". No, of course, like a base minesweeper - this is also a warship and the fleet cannot do without them either. And, the mine seeker boat is probably on this list. But they do not make the face of the fleet, no offense to the crews of these ships and boats will be said. But the "title" new ships of at least 2 ranks - one or two and missed. A terrible burden. And still it remained unclear which fleet will continue to be built and for what purposes. Of course, after such a collapse of inter-plant cooperation and the destruction of shipbuilding plants, it is indeed difficult to put things right again. It has been said many times about gas turbines and diesel engines - officials from the Navy have "flapped their ears". Who is responsible for this? (position, rank / title, full name) And, for example, furniture for residential and utility rooms of surface ships in Soviet times was made in Uzhgorod. Who is doing it now? And there are hundreds of such questions.
    1. Idiot
      Idiot 20 May 2016 17: 32
      0
      Nuclear submarines and submarines are built according to the plan, within the time frames established by state contracts. And even the USA has problems - they buy RD-180 from us, for example. What did they slap? The concept of combat use of the Russian Navy has changed a bit, you probably haven’t noticed ...
  13. 31rus2
    31rus2 April 30 2016 17: 58
    +1
    Dear, alas, for a long time (two years for sure), there are a lot of words, assurances, promises and that the most negative sounds are all from the lips of people responsible for the country's security, here you don't need to be a specialist to understand the full depth of the problems and alas these problems broader and more serious than just sanctions, we need not "talking heads", but thinking military leaders
  14. serg2108
    serg2108 1 May 2016 00: 47
    +3
    interesting opinions are expressed by all visitors .. but I have never met articles on the website that could explain why a fleet is needed for a simple person (I personally know) ... no need to minus this
    which fleet, from the point of view of our state administration, is needed by us, what construction capacities do we have, etc., etc. If the authors post an article about the fleet on the site, do not take the time to write it will be very interesting! and gentlemen, there are a lot of people who served in the fleet, write the same opinion, because many will be interested because what kind of fleet is needed in our country, a lot has been written, and still everyone has different opinions, and so can we conduct a survey on this? wink
    1. Idiot
      Idiot 20 May 2016 17: 38
      0
      I did not write an article, but often comment on this topic. In my opinion, which was formed from the amount of information about the Russian Navy that is available in the press: our fleet has only one combat mission in the event of World War III - to prevent the destruction of the SSBNs before emptying their missile mines. Then the fleet will die heroically, but it will not matter to anyone, including our sworn friends and their friends ...
  15. gallville
    gallville 5 May 2016 19: 53
    0
    Quote: serg2108
    interesting opinions are expressed by all visitors .. but I have never met articles on the website that could explain why a fleet is needed for a simple person (I personally know) ... no need to minus this

    Well, what immediately minus? Let's get on the fingers of an example .... Syria ....
    1. How to carry? Of course the ancient BDK why Mistral? Better yet, a 10-second-hand Turkish bulk carrier.
    2. How to protect? Ancient BOD with 8 missiles and a tortured cruiser.
    2. How to bomb? Well, to collect planes from the VKS from all over the country and transfer it to the air force base in Syria.
    3. How to protect the air force base? Well, naturally, the Airborne Forces, units of the SV, units of the Marine Corps drugs.
    4. How to put it all in a heap? Well, of course, by heroic efforts.
    While in fact all this should be decided by the forces of one department. But there is no this agency more precisely, is there only sense?

    Let's give one more example. The Japanese have already passed a law on the use of the army abroad. Suppose you decide.
    The ratio of forces to the offensive Pacific Fleet against the Japanese Navy:
    Cruiser:
    Russia - 2 (one sucks)
    Helicopter carriers:
    Japan - 2
    BDK:
    Russia - 4
    DKA (landing craft)
    Russia - 4

    Now about the most massive ships:
    Destroyers / BOD:
    Russia - 5 (3 more for conservation and repair)
    Japan - 39 (of which 2 destroyers of the helicopter carrier 8 URO) + 2 training
    Frigates - displacement of 2 thousand
    Japan - 6 pcs.
    Warships displacement up to 2 thousand tons.
    Russia - 24 (MRC and others).

    Submarines:
    Pacific Fleet - 22 different classes, including strategic (of which 12 are under repair, etc.), a total of 10;
    Japan - 16 + 2 training.

    How many marine corps? 1 brigade spread all over the Far East?

    What are the chances to defend the islands now? At least in the case of which to increase the contingent of forces? 4 BDK not much manure.
    1. Ustinov 055 055
      Ustinov 055 055 6 May 2016 16: 37
      +1
      Don’t break your ears. No one canceled Satan’s flight.
    2. Idiot
      Idiot 20 May 2016 18: 14
      0
      Another heroic admiral general and analytical analyst. I will ask a number of questions: what are the results of the "Syrian Express" and the entire operation to force the Syrian opposition to peace (this is how I understand it), what are the losses in the naval personnel of the Russian Navy during the reporting period?
      How did the Navy of Turkey and other NATO countries (announce the quantitative composition, conduct a comparative analysis, as you can) influenced the Black Sea Fleet's performance of the task assigned to it? And they carry and guard and bomb. By the way, planes from all over the country were not assembled. In the sense that there are few of them. They acted wisely: they conducted not just exercises, but exercises in conditions as close as possible to combat ones and at the expense of funds that would still have been spent on exercises. This, you know, invigorates when a soldier shoots a real enemy, not a training one, the crews flock, again ... Our bases in Syria are guarded so effectively that, firstly, during the entire operation (I hope this will be further) our servicemen and equipment were not even fired upon, let alone suffered losses (when it all began, our belligerent Israeli friends often assumed that the bases were extremely vulnerable, that they would be fired upon even by mortars and small arms). Secondly, even Western journalists, among whom there were actually few journalists, noted through clenched teeth that in Syria, Russia is doing fine with the armed forces. Regarding the lack of the necessary tonnage of auxiliary vessels and large landing ships, the question is for the fans of aircraft carriers, these are the fans of aircraft carriers demanding to build them, probably their libido increases in this way - I read an article about the need for aircraft carriers in the Russian Navy and for women ... I believe that "Mistrals "We certainly needed it, that's why they weren't sold to us. I'm even sure that when they were ordered, there were already plans for events in Syria, but this is my subjective opinion. It is pointless to compare the potential of the Russian and Japanese navies, we are colossally stronger, the Japanese navy simply has no chance in the event of an armed conflict. Because when comparing, it is necessary to consider not only floating craft, but the structure of fleets as a whole, because any fleet is not only ships, it is mainly a huge combat mechanism, a bunch of high technologies and weapons, which are located not only on ships, but also on the shore. ..In general, the Pacific Fleet can destroy Japan, and the Japanese Navy can only destroy the ships of the Pacific Fleet, but nothing more. There is no need to talk about heroic efforts, no need to touch with your gnarled little hands the heroism of our men (and not your Batmans and captains of America), but as for putting a heap together, you did it - such a stinking heap of incomprehensible conclusions under the sauce of incompetence ...
  16. silver_roman
    silver_roman 10 May 2016 17: 33
    +1
    Work is underway in this direction in the USA.

    In the USA, work is underway towards VNEU, because in the USA do not use DEPL. All of their submarines are atomic because on a diesel-electric submarine you’ll swim through the oceans.

    By the way, the Lada project did not take place. It seems like the next episode will be called "Kalina". They were going to equip VNEU!
    hi
    1. Idiot
      Idiot 20 May 2016 18: 24
      0
      In the USA, work on VNEU was not carried out because they were, to put it mildly, wrong. They also do not use diesel-electric submarines for this reason for a long time. Recently, they realized that, to put it mildly, they were mistaken when the famous Swedish boat set their connection with cancer. Apparently, they realized that, to put it mildly, they were mistaken and, I believe, soon we will hear either about the resumption of work in this direction, or (oh, horror!) About the procurement of diesel-electric submarines for the US Navy, possibly in Germany. Regarding the crossing of the oceans at DEPL, the Americans agree - this is difficult and only real sailors can do. Regarding our project with VNEU, then, in my opinion, even if they call the hell bald, if only it took place ...
  17. chunga-changa
    chunga-changa 14 May 2016 10: 03
    +1
    As a result of the Second World War, it became clear that from now on, the main role in the sea would be played not by large artillery ships, but by aircraft carriers.

    In fact, it became clear that submarines would play a dominant role.
    The preservation of the large forces of surface ships by island empires is their local specificity, such as our tank armies.
    In fact, the most widespread, universal, and formidable weapons at sea are and remain submarines.
    And all these disputes and comparisons of the TTX AB and LC, these are reflections on the topic - but what type of tanks is better to equip tank armies. And for anyone, the main thing is that these armies would be enough to defeat the enemy.
    1. Idiot
      Idiot 20 May 2016 18: 44
      0
      You, apparently, want to say nuclear submarines, because diesel-electric submarines are still limited in their global influence on world sea communications, but they are extremely effective for local purposes, for example, blocking the Black Sea straits ... I absolutely agree, that's why we are building them, and not aircraft carriers. And the presence of a large navy is necessary for the United States, because it is indeed an island power, the so-called "state of the sea", along with Great Britain, our three-hundred-year-old geopolitical adversary. Regarding tank armies, I disagree. The modern tank army is as strong as a haberdasher and a cardinal. It is not in vain that it is being restored so far only one, in nats not speaking heads sit and know what it is. They, at one time, buried nuclear landmines in Europe on the possible directions of the offensive of the Western Group of arms of the USSR Armed Forces and reasonably believed that two weeks would be enough for our strike groups to reach the Atlantic. So while one tank army, so as not to crap ...