(weighting factor 3)
Comments on the dynamics of 2016 – 2017
In the main rating Mil.Press FLOT only accepts for comparison warships main classes of the Russian Navy and the US Navy. In recent years, the Chinese navy has also been intensively strengthened. But official Beijing is trying to keep the exact data about its shipbuilding program secret, so it is not possible to objectively assess the combat capabilities of the Chinese Navy.This time, the editors made minor adjustments when assessing the combat readiness of the US Navy, making allowances for ships that went for overhaul and modernization. Thanks to this, based on the results of 2017, which was not very successful for Russian naval shipbuilding (the Navy received only two warships - a frigate and a corvette), Russia avoided failure in the report card and even slightly improved its position compared to the previous year.
Note that during the same time, the US Navy received the new generation aircraft carrier Gerald Ford, two Arleigh Burke class guided missile destroyers, two Virginia class multipurpose nuclear submarines and three LCS coastal zone ships. But two incidents in the US Pacific Fleet played in Russia's favor, as a result of which the destroyers "" and "John McCain" were out of action for a long time.
If we take into account the ships in trial operation, repair and reserve ships and boats, and auxiliary fleet vessels, we can talk about almost equal payroll parties; At the same time, the Russian Navy continues to be inferior to the US Navy in combat potential by slightly less than a third.
7. The indicator is recalculated annually.
2017 for maritime military-industrial complex enterprises
January 25, modernized diesel-electric submarine "Komsomolsk-on-Amur".On January 25, at the Sredne-Nevsky Shipyard in St. Petersburg, a solemn ceremony of laying down the third mine defense ship of Project 12700, named “Ivan Antonov,” took place.
In February St. Petersburg machine-building plant Arsenal announced the successful completion of field tests of the modernized 76.2 mm AK-176MA gun mount. It is this gun that will arm new corvettes, small missile ships and missile boats.
On March 24, the Almaz-Antey concern, which is responsible for the readiness of anti-aircraft missile systems, was accused of delaying the delivery of new warships for the Navy.
On March 31, in Severodvinsk, at the Sevmash plant, the Kazan multi-purpose nuclear submarine was taken out of the boathouse and launched, which became the first built according to the improved Yasen-M project 885M.
On April 6, the Zvezdochka Ship Repair Center completed work on the repair of the nuclear submarine missile cruiser Orel (Project 949A Antey).
On April 20, the third serial mine defense ship of Project 12700, Vladimir Emelyanov, was laid down at the Sredne-Nevsky Shipyard in St. Petersburg.
On April 25, Russian President Vladimir Putin started testing the GTA M35R-1 gas turbine unit with the new M70FRU-2 marine engine.
On December 5, at the Leningrad shipyard "Pella" the experimental vessel "Ilmen" of project 11982 was launched.
In December it became known that the Feodosia Ship Mechanical Plant would be transferred to the St. Petersburg Zvezda.
On December 25, the third frigate of Project 11356, Admiral Makarov, was transferred to the fleet.
On December 28, Zvezdochka completed repairs to the nuclear submarine Tula.
On December 29, it became known that Severnaya Verf signed a contract for the construction of a new boathouse for the construction of large-capacity ships and vessels.
On New Year's Eve it became known that the transfer to the Russian Navy of the Project 22350 frigate "Admiral Gorshkov", the large landing ship of Project 11711 "Ivan Gren", the logistics support project 23120 "Elbrus" and small rocket ship project 21631 "Vyshny Volochek".
From the editor
Legendary Commander-in-Chief of the USSR Navy Admiral of the Fleet of the Soviet Union S.G. Gorshkov, speaking about the balance of the Navy, argued that it “lies in ensuring that all the elements that make up its combat power, and the means that provide them, are constantly in the most advantageous combination, in which the fleet can fully realize the ability to carry out various tasks in conditions of both nuclear and any possible war."For a number of years, the Central Naval Portal (CNMP) has been conducting an independent study of the composition and condition of the fleets of the leading world powers, and primarily the Russian fleet, traditionally assessing its combat potential in relation to the US naval forces.
In its research, CVMP accepts for calculations only those data that become available in open press: both domestic (military-industrial complex, magazine "Vlast") and foreign (Jane's), as well as in electronic media. The calculation of the numerical strength of both fleets was also made with certain assumptions, which were initially explained in relation to support vessels, auxiliary fleet, reserve ships, methods for calculating the combat strength of the Russian Navy and the US Navy, TsVMP is not an academic publication and considers possible errors acceptable.
As for calculating the combat capabilities of fleets, here too the Central Military Command chose not to follow traditional methods, deliberately avoiding calculations of combat potential, especially since the term “combat potential” itself contains a lot different definitions. We do not undertake to calculate the combat potential of the Navy and understand the complexity of taking into account the totality of various types of weapons and equipment, control and support systems, and other factors and components of such a calculation. There is a General Staff for this.
TsVMP applied its own calculation method, which makes it possible to visually tabular form not only to reflect the diversity of the naval composition of the two fleets, but to compare their combat capabilities.
Each row of the table is assigned its own coefficient, just as in traditional methods for calculating combat potential, weighted average coefficients are used, reflecting the totality of indicators of the combat properties of ships. The choice of coefficient values was not made entirely arbitrarily, but based on an assessment of the totality of the combat properties of ships of one class or another.
Nuclear-powered missile submarines, despite their exceptional firepower, are assigned a coefficient of 0. We deliberately excluded the “naval component” from the calculation nuclear shield“not only because “their participation in a non-nuclear war is not expected,” but also in order to bring out of the shadow of this shield the real ratio of the combat capabilities of the Russian Navy and the US Navy.
Readers generally agreed on the choice of values for other coefficients.
The obvious simplicity of the calculation gave results that make it possible to understand the acute public concern about the state of our fleet.
According to the decision adopted at the end of 2010 State program weapons for 2011-2020 (GPV-2020), it is planned to allocate more than 20 trillion rubles for the development of the army and navy, including for the construction of 50 surface ships, 8 strategic missile submarines and 20 submarines, up to 80 auxiliary fleet vessels.
Alexander MOZGOVOY
SCARY "HALIBUT"
The transition of Stary Oskol was accompanied by the accompaniment of Western funds mass media, frightening the world with the growing Russian underwater threat. However, this was also the case during the voyages of the first two “halibuts”. Only the emphasis has shifted somewhat. During the passage of the diesel-electric submarine "Novorossiysk" - the lead in the series - a stir in the foreign media caused the boat to call at the Spanish port of Ceuta on the African coast to replenish supplies and rest the crew (for more details, see the magazine "National Defense" No. 10/2015). British publications were especially zealous. They saw in Madrid's actions a provocation directed against Gibraltar, a British enclave on the Iberian Peninsula. Like, it is outrageous that a NATO country provides its services to a warship of Russia, which is subject to Western sanctions, like a pack of wolves with red flags. And here is such unacceptable liberalism!
The Rostov-on-Don voyage (for more details, see National Defense magazine No. 1/2016) caused consternation and shock in the West after this boat attacked with 3M-14 cruise missiles from the Kalibr-PL complex on December 8 last year. a powerful strike from under water against the targets of the Islamic State terrorist organization banned in Russia. In the USA and other NATO countries, not without reason, they considered that this was not only an attack on the targets of a criminal gang, but also a warning to the North Atlantic bloc that Russia was not a joke, since 3M-14 missiles can be equipped not only with conventional, but also with nuclear weapons in parts.
Shortly before the start of the transition to the Black Sea, Stary Oskol carried out missile firing. On May 6, the boat successfully hit an object at the Chizha training ground in Arkhangelsk region. And a day earlier, the B-262 used 3M-54 missiles to strike a naval target with high accuracy.
Here it should be noted that in order to save motor life, Russian diesel-electric submarines of project 06363, after deep-sea and firing tests, make transitions from Barents Sea to Black at economic speed. Most of the journey is covered on the surface, and often in tow. This time, too, the Stary Oskol was accompanied by the tugboat Altai.
And suddenly a storm arose. But not at sea, but in the Western media, primarily British. “Royal Navy frigate intercepts Russian submarine near English Channel” was the headline of a publication in The Telegraph of London on June 8. This topic was unanimously picked up by other publications in the United Kingdom, as well as some European and American media. The Sun, a popular tabloid in the British Isles, even called the crew of the frigate Kent “English heroes.” The commander of Her Majesty's ship, Commander Daniel Thomas, modestly noted that "the Russian submarine was discovered thanks to joint efforts with NATO allies." Indeed, as soon as the B-262 entered the North Sea, it was “accompanied” by the Dutch frigate Tromp. And the “interceptor” Kent has already received the second batch. Meanwhile, UK Defense Secretary Michael Fallon said: "This means the Royal Navy remains vigilant in international and territorial waters to keep the UK safe and protect us from potential threats." In fact, Stary Oskol did not need to make its way to the English Channel to create a threat to the security of the United Kingdom. The boat could strike with “calibers” on the shores of Foggy Albion while still in the Barents Sea. And the “English heroes,” of course, would not have saved the country. That is, “intercept” Russian submarine on the approach to the English Channel in the event of hostilities - a useless task and even, let’s not be afraid of this word, archaic, from somewhere from the 60-80s of the last century.
There was another aspect to this story. The “interception” took place shortly before Brexit – a referendum on whether or not Britain should leave European Union. As the Foreign Secretary of the United Kingdom, Philip Hammond, made it clear (in Theresa May's cabinet he moved to the post of Chancellor of the Exchequer): “To be honest, the only country that would like us to leave the EU is Russia. And that says a lot." That is, the insidious Moscow sent the submarine in order to put pressure on the island residents. And success was achieved! The subjects of Elizabeth II by a majority of votes said “Good bye!” European Union.
FOURTH BATTLE OF THE ATLANTIC
But jokes aside, the picture, according to a number of Western naval experts, emerges as bleak. In the June issue of this year, the journal Proceedings, which publishes the US Naval Institute, published an article by the commander of the US 6th Fleet, at the same time the commander of the NATO strike naval forces and maritime support forces in Europe, Vice Admiral James Foggo, and a leading specialist at the US Naval Warfare Center. analysis by Dr. Eleric Fritz. Their publication, which caused a noticeable resonance not only in the special, but also in the popular media, is called very eloquently - “The Fourth Battle of the Atlantic.”
What the authors mean by this is clear. The first battle refers to a tough confrontation between German submarines and the Entente and US Navy, which ended in victory for the latter. The second, naturally, is the most difficult struggle of the anti-submarine forces of Great Britain and the United States against fascist submarines. In both cases, the Battle of the Atlantic was accompanied by huge losses of Allied merchant tonnage. Twice England was nearly brought to its knees. Anti-submarine warfare required the concentration of large financial and material resources on both sides of the Atlantic. And only the “connection” of the United States allowed London to survive and win.
The third battle, as you might guess, refers to the years of the Cold War. The most powerful US and NATO fleets Soviet Union pitted hundreds of nuclear and diesel-electric submarines against each other. And although this battle did not result in a real war, the United States and its NATO allies, according to the authors of the Proceedings, gained the upper hand due to their high-quality anti-submarine capabilities. The thesis is highly controversial, since such third-generation nuclear submarines as the Soviet nuclear-powered submarines of projects 941, 667BDRM, 949, 945, 671RTM and 971, as well as diesel-electric submarines of project 877, were not inferior, and in a number of characteristics were superior to their foreign counterparts. And the anti-submarine weapons of the North Atlantic Alliance cannot be called amazing. The Soviet Union lost the third Battle of the Atlantic not because of the technical imperfections of Soviet submarines, but due to the collapse of the very country that built them. Here, we believe, is not the place to dwell on the reasons for the collapse of the USSR, but we will only say that among these reasons were excessive military expenditures, which led to the bankruptcy of a great power.
And now James Foggo and Eleric Fritz, and with them dozens of other American and Western European naval authorities, are proclaiming the coming of the fourth Battle of the Atlantic. In an interview with The National Interest, a publication specializing in issues national security United States, the duo behind the Proceedings developed their ideas. They argue that “the most serious threat to US and NATO navies in Europe comes from a powerful submarine fleet Russia and its new anti-access (A2/AD) bastions in the Kaliningrad region and other regions.”
Here the admiral and the naval expert resort to somewhat sophisticated American terminology, which has become popular overseas over the past three or four years. Anti-access/area-denial (A2/AD) – literally translated as “access denial/area blocking”. Simply put, this means that the US and NATO armed forces cannot freely deploy their ships, aircraft and military units in certain areas of the world without the threat of being destroyed. It was first used in relation to China, which put into service anti-ship ballistic missiles
DF-21D, which made the presence of American aircraft carriers off the coast of China pointless, since they are capable of hitting floating airfields at a range of up to 2000 km. But now, according to foreign military experts, Russia has created the same denial-of-access zones around the Kaliningrad region, off the coast of Crimea, in the Kamchatka region, and around the Syrian cities of Tartus and Latakia. In our opinion, in these areas, full-fledged no-access zones are still a long way off, but the foundations for their creation certainly exist.
Let us pay attention to the very formulation of the question. If any country cares about its security and builds defense lines, then it thereby poses a threat to the United States and its NATO allies. That is, military development throughout the world should be subordinated exclusively to the interests of Washington and its partners. And nothing else. This is not even a paradox, but paranoia.
According to Foggo, “The Russians are building a series of stealth diesel-electric submarines that are part of Russian strategy denial of access." Indeed, Project 06363 diesel-electric submarines are excellent submarines, capable of performing a wide range of tasks: patrolling, conducting reconnaissance, striking coastal and sea targets, laying mines, transporting combat swimmers, etc. Obviously, they are capable of “denying access” to forces hostile to Russia in certain water areas adjacent to the country’s shores. But, in our opinion, in this particular case, the “halibuts” are clearly drawn to the “Russian access denial strategy” by the ears, since it has nothing to do with the fourth Battle of the Atlantic.
The Russian multi-purpose nuclear powered ships of Project 885 “Ash” were not forgotten by American experts either. “The Severodvinsk nuclear submarine makes a strong impression,” states the commander of the 6th Fleet with obvious regret. “The submarines the Russians have cause us serious concern,” echoes Admiral Eleric Fritz, “as they are very combat-ready and are an extremely maneuverable tool of the Russian Armed Forces.”
British Vice Admiral Clive Johnston, who heads the NATO Naval Command, shares a similar view. A number of his statements on this subject were cited by the well-known international military-technical and military-political magazine Jane's Defense Weekly. This admiral says that the North Atlantic Alliance is concerned about the record high level of activity of Russian submarines in the North Atlantic: “The activity of Russian submarines in the North The Atlantic is now equaling or even surpassing Cold War levels. Russian submarines are not only returning to Cold War levels in operational performance, but they have also made a big leap in theirs. technological characteristics and demonstrate a level of Russian potential that we have not seen before.”
PALE SHADOW
However, not all Western naval specialists demonstrate such open alarmist sentiments. There is a fairly significant group of experts who do not share the views of their colleagues.
“The Russian submarine fleet, which has been in hibernation for twenty years without sea voyages and money for military service, is again beginning to show signs of life, notes Michael Kofman, a fellow at the Kennan Institute at the Woodrow Wilson Center, in an article posted on the CNN website. – Russia has been absent from the underwater world for a long time, which is why most NATO countries have either reduced their submarine fleets or completely abandoned submarine warfare capabilities. Relations with Russia were politically irritable but militarily stable, and the Russian submarine fleet stood at the wall and in many cases rusted and died quietly at the piers.”
It is difficult to disagree with the assessment of the American expert. A similar picture was observed not only in the submarine fleet, but in the Russian Navy as a whole. The Swiss website Offiziere.ch published on December 16 last year a comparative table compiled by Louis Martin-Vizian on the ship composition of the USSR Navy in 1990 and the Russian Navy in 2015. There are minor inaccuracies, but they do not affect the overall picture. The table shows that over a quarter of a century, the number of warships in the fleet decreased from 657 units to 172, including the number of SSBNs decreased from 59 units to 13, including the experimental Dmitry Donskoy of Project 941U, nuclear submarines with cruise missiles from 58 units to 6, multi-purpose nuclear-powered ships from 64 units to 17, diesel-electric submarines from 59 units to 20, cruisers (the author of the table, according to NATO practice, also includes large anti-submarine ships of projects 1134A and 1134B) from 30 units to 3, destroyers, taking into account BOD projects 1155 and 11551 from 45 units to 14, frigates and corvettes (patrol ships) from 122 units to 10, large landing ships from 42 units to 19. The total number of small missile ships, missile boats and small anti-submarine ships, which tightly and reliably held the defense of the country’s coasts, fell from 168 units to 68. The table does not show mine-sweeping ships, landing and artillery boats, but it is known that their number also “collapsed” catastrophically. Considering that these forces have practically not been updated and are “stretched” over five sea and ocean theaters (see the US Navy intelligence map), talking about the return of the Russian Navy to the level of the Cold War is simply ridiculous.
“The reality,” points out Michael Kofman, “is that the Russian submarine force today is only a pale shadow of the formidable Soviet submarine fleet, which numbered hundreds of submarines. Despite all the talk about combat readiness, only half of Russian submarines are currently capable of going to sea at any given time... And although the activity of the Russian submarine fleet has increased significantly, at least judging by the statements of the country's naval command, these figures can be impressive only in comparison with the early 2000s, when submarines almost never went to sea. Claims that Russian submarine forces operate at “Cold War levels” are an exaggeration at best. This is simply impossible. This force is emerging from its coma to pose a traditional challenge to NATO in the Mediterranean and North Atlantic, but is dwarfed by the Soviet submarine fleet of the Cold War."
Michael Kofman draws attention to the fact that the construction of Russian SSBNs and SSGNs is behind schedule, “and the entire military shipbuilding program is in question due to Russian economic woes.” In an interview with the same publication, The National Interest, Kofman paid more attention to the Project 885 Yasen nuclear submarine, noting that the lead submarine of this type not only took too long to build, but also spent a very long time testing: “The first boat of the Yasen class passed sea trials several years and only this year it came into operation.”
Here we cannot help but recall that the nuclear submarine Severodvinsk was put into trial operation on December 30, 2013, and on June 17 of the following year it was officially included in the Russian Navy. However, in March of this year, Deputy Commander-in-Chief of the Russian Navy, Vice Admiral Alexander Fedotenkov, said that this submarine “has completed trial operation.” So when did this happen: June 2014 or March 2016? It should be noted here that the official statement of the Northern Fleet press service dated March 19 of this year did not talk about “trial operation”, but about “completion of the development of the lead ship of the Yasen project.” It can be assumed that in June 2014, the boat was commissioned in advance, since President Vladimir Putin was expected to visit the Northern Fleet, and the naval commanders felt like showing the head of state and the Supreme Commander-in-Chief an unready warship, about whose outstanding characteristics so much had been said and written. -it's awkward.
Paying attention to low temps nuclear submarine construction like "Ash", Michael Kofman says: “Each subsequent boat, in fact, is built in an artisanal way. Who knows what characteristics the next Kazan boat or the one that will be built after it will have? They take so much time to build that... serial production out of the question". One cannot but agree with this argument. When laying down the Kazan in 2009, it was said that the boat would enter service in 2014. Then the schedule was shifted to the right - until 2017. It has now been officially announced that the fleet will receive the submarine in 2018.
And yet, Michael Kofman also sees a threat from Russian submarines. “Of course,” he concludes, “given the reduction of the US Navy, especially in the European theater, as well as the gaps of NATO allies in the construction modern forces and resources, even such a small submarine fleet can pose problems because it is difficult to track and contain. So military leaders are right to express concern in today’s climate of confrontation and unstable relations with Russia.”
NOT DOWNSTREAMING OR EXAGGERATING
The same approach, that is, without underestimating, but also without exaggerating the capabilities of the modern Russian fleet, primarily the submarine, is shared by retired US Navy captain Thomas Fedyshin. He is a professional naval sailor - he served on various ships of the US Navy, including commanding the guided-missile destroyer William V. Pratt (DDG 44) and the guided-missile cruiser Normandy (CG 60), was a naval attaché in Russia - and is now a naval expert , director research group"Europe-Russia" of the US Naval War College, where senior officers of the United States Navy are trained. In an article with the eloquent title “Putin’s Navy is more than Potemkin villages,” published by Proceedings magazine in May of this year, Fedyshin writes: “Western experts tend to jump to conclusions about the weakness of the Russian Navy when they argue that the Russians are only bluffing and letting dust in the eyes. Although much is done for show, the Russian fleet is still dangerous.” He gives several examples to support this thesis. Thus, since 2009, the number of Russian sailors has noticeably increased. According to him, although the TASS news agency is probably exaggerating when it reports that 70 Navy warships are constantly present on combat duty in the World Ocean, one cannot fail to note the dramatic increase in the time spent by Russian sailors on cruises. “They don’t talk about this much, but on new Russian ships and those who perform the most important tasks are no longer military personnel conscript service, – emphasizes the author of the publication. “Thus, the level of training of sailors is increasing, which, of course, has a positive effect on the state of the Navy.” The number of maneuvers has increased, including joint ones with the navies of other states. Last year, the Russian Navy and the Chinese Navy conducted the largest joint exercises in their history in the Sea of Japan, as well as in the Mediterranean Sea.
Thomas Fedyshin draws special attention to the role of the Russian Navy in the Syrian crisis: “In October there followed unexpected launches of sea-based cruise missiles from the Caspian Sea and in October from the Mediterranean Sea. Russian missiles flew more than 1,500 km and hit terrorist forces.”
And this is the author’s conclusion: “In the end, the Russian Navy became large and strong enough for Russia to influence international affairs in nearby regions. And this gun is capable of shooting at a target... Having analyzed the Russian Navy from the point of view of maritime strategy, ongoing operations and the state of shipbuilding in the country, we come to the conclusion that the Russian fleet has returned to the status of one of the leading in the world. Its current state is better than at any time since the end of the Cold War. Judging by the classical principles of potential and intent, the Russian Navy can be considered a threat to Western interests - at least in Russian coastal waters. However, since the Russian fleet is noticeably inferior to NATO forces in the open seas and oceans, it is unlikely that it will conduct significant shows of force or any offensive operations away from its home shores.”
WEAPON SELECTION
Let us summarize some of the discussion about current state Russian fleet. Yes, now and in the foreseeable future, the Russian Navy will not be able to compete with the navies of the United States, other NATO countries, as well as their partners in the Asia-Pacific region, either in the number of ships or in the type of a number of classes of surface ships. In order to fulfill the tasks assigned to the Navy to prevent aggression against Russia from sea and ocean directions, it is necessary to determine as accurately as possible the composition of forces and means capable of reliably protecting the country, especially in the current very constrained financial circumstances. Now there is confusion and vacillation here. For example, in the media you can often find statements from high-ranking military personnel and figures in the shipbuilding industry about preparations for the construction of nuclear destroyers of cruising displacement and nuclear aircraft carriers. Apart from huge costs and immeasurable deadlines, this will not result in anything.
Over twenty years of virtual downtime in the shipbuilding industry, personnel and many key skills and technologies have been lost. Meanwhile, the fleet urgently needs updating. Suffice it to say that the largest and most powerful Russian Northern Fleet of surface ships in a quarter of a century received only the heavy nuclear-powered missile cruiser "Peter the Great" and the BOD "Admiral Chabanenko", laid down in Soviet times and put into operation in the 90s of the last century. True, this year the anti-sabotage boat “Rook” of Project 21980 with a displacement of 140 tons is expected to arrive.
Russian industry is already capable of serial construction of minesweepers and small missile ships. The latter have proven to be highly effective in the Syrian operation. They not only carry out missile strikes against terrorists, but also provide sea protection for Russian objects on the territory of the Syrian Arab Republic. The frigates of Project 11356R/M also turned out to be successful and balanced. Their construction, as is known, is hampered by sanctions on the supply of gas turbine engines. But sooner or later this problem will be solved. It is necessary to bring to fruition even more advanced frigates of Project 22350, as well as corvettes of Project 20380/20385. It is frigates that should become the top bar in Russian surface military shipbuilding. These multi-purpose ships are capable of solving all the tasks facing the Russian Navy in the near and far zones.
Betting on superships is futile. And because we have forgotten how to build them, and because they are insanely expensive, and because, despite all their super-armament, the US Navy and NATO will be able to cope with them. You don’t have to look far for examples. It was officially announced that the timing of the transfer of the Navy after the modernization of heavy nuclear cruiser“Admiral Nakhimov” has been shifted two years to the right since 2018. Let us remind you that work on it started in the spring of 2014, but the clearing of old structures has not yet been completed. Obviously, it will not be possible to meet the re-equipment of the ship by 2020. You will have to “steer” to the right again. In the meantime, for the same money you can build several much-needed frigates and even more corvettes, not to mention small missiles - their number would go into dozens.
As Lenta.ru recently reported, defense industry and the Russian Navy are considering the possibility of equipping all rank 1-2 warships of the new generation with nuclear power plants. This trend, they say, is due to the fact that the development and production of nuclear power plants are established in Russia and do not depend on supplies from abroad. As the agency’s source said, “we are talking about creating a line of unified installations for surface ships with a displacement from 4,000 tons (frigate) to 80 thousand tons or more (aircraft carrier), with a power, conditionally, from 40 to 200 megawatts. Taking into account the fact that the Navy’s needs in the next twenty years for ships of rank 1-2 can be estimated at approximately 40 units, the production of such a number of installations will not be particularly difficult.”
A paradoxical situation is emerging: they say, because we do not have reliable diesel engines and currently do not have gas turbines at all, let’s equip large surface ships with nuclear power plants. Has anyone calculated the cost of this idea? Russia still has problems with the disposal of decommissioned nuclear power plants. power plants, and we are forced to apply for foreign aid, scaring our neighbors that without their help we could poison half the planet with radioactive waste. Finally, have you thought about the fact that a warship with a nuclear power plant will plow the seas and oceans in the cheerful company of Greenpeace boats and vessels and will not be allowed into most ports of the world? Therefore, there is no one to show the flag to. With the help of nuclear monsters, you can only scare foreign citizens and shake money out of them for military spending by the United States, NATO and others like them. But in the end, this will lead to the fact that the Russian Navy will not receive ships at all - neither large nor small.
The experience of the Cold War era and current times convincingly proves that we can only “get” countries hostile to us with submarines. Therefore, the construction of multi-purpose nuclear submarines should not stretch over decades, but become strictly rhythmic. “Yaseni” are truly excellent boats (for more details, see the magazine “National Defense” No. 3/2015). They should not become obsolete on the stocks.
In March of this year, it became known about work on a fifth-generation multipurpose nuclear submarine, which received the code “Husky.” Her appearance is still being formed, but it is known that she will become further development The Project 885 nuclear submarine will be armed with Zircon hypersonic missiles, testing of which has already begun. It is, of course, difficult to judge the future ship from computer drawings of this submarine that have appeared on the Internet, especially since this “image” itself may not correspond to reality or will change over time. And yet, even from it one can get a certain idea of the future nuclear submarine. The ideally streamlined spindle-shaped hull of the Husky strongly resembles the experimental laboratory submarine SS-530 of Project 1710, which at one time was created for research in the field of hydrodynamics and acoustics of promising submarines. The signature Malachite limousine shape of the fencing of retractable devices also contributes to exceptionally “clean” silent flow. The entire nose tip is occupied by the radome of the conformal large-sized GAS antenna. Behind it are the covers of twenty-two vertical launchers for firing missiles and torpedoes. Moreover, each launcher can accommodate several units of torpedo or missile weapons. They can also be used to house uninhabited underwater vehicles and transporters of combat swimmers. The boat's propulsion system, again to reduce noise, is in a ring-shaped Pump Jet type nozzle. The tail rudders are cruciform. One can only guess about the Husky's nuclear power plant and electronic equipment. But, undoubtedly, this nuclear submarine will be a highly automated ship - a further development of the high-speed submarines of Project 705, which were designated “Alfa” in the West.
At the end of this month, the keel of the Perm nuclear submarine, the sixth boat of the Yasen family, is expected, and a year later another one, completing the series. Then the construction of Husky-type boats will begin.
Submarines with nuclear installations in our country and abroad they are expensive, even very expensive. Some of the tasks they perform can be taken over by diesel-electric submarines or non-submarine submarines. The first include Project 06363 submarines, six of which are intended for the Black Sea Fleet and three of which have already arrived at their home place - Novorossiysk. Six more such boats will be built according to a slightly modified design for Pacific Fleet to “cool” anti-Russian passions in Japan.
And in 2018, the laying of N is expected at the Admiralty Shipyards Nuclear submarine type“Kalina” is a fifth-generation non-nuclear submarine with an auxiliary air-independent (anaerobic) power plant (VNEU), which will allow the submarine to not float to the surface for several weeks. This will be a qualitative leap in development submarine forces Russia.
As we know, Project 06363 “halibuts” can launch missile attacks on the enemy. But they can only stay under water for a few days. That is, these submarines are forced to surface to recharge their batteries and thereby unmask themselves. Even the use of a device for operating the engine under water (snorkel) does not guarantee invisibility. And only VNEU and high-capacity lithium-ion batteries, or even better, a combination of these energy sources, make it possible for non-nuclear submarines to be truly underwater.
|
|
If everything works out, and we believe in it, then Kalina-class NSSNs and their modifications should become the most massive ships of the Russian fleet, maybe not as numerous as diesel-electric submarines of Project 613 (215 units) in Soviet times, but about 50-60 we can speak in units. And then the “wolf packs” of the Russian Navy, consisting of “viburnums”, “halibuts”, “ash trees” and “huskies”, will be able to put heavy pressure on the shores of America, European countries NATO and their partners in other regions of the world. This is necessary in order to drive away Arleigh Burke-class destroyers with SM-3 interceptor missiles and Tomahawk cruise missiles from the seas surrounding Russia. They will be forced to leave to ensure the anti-submarine defense of the United States
The ability to penetrate the depths of the sea and unnoticed to wedge into enemy defenses. Choose best place and time to attack. Survive without significant defense costs, taking advantage of the uncertainty and ambiguity of the aquatic environment. The unique properties of submarines make it possible to provide an unprecedented effect of presence and deterrence, far from being proportional to the size and number of the submarines themselves.
Today, the Russian Navy and the US Navy are the world's largest submarine operators. Each of the fleets is armed with best samples underwater weapons, represented by numerous types of submarines.
Submarine component of the Russian Navy
Strategic missile submarines (SSBNs). Carriers of submarine-launched intercontinental ballistic missiles, the basis of Russia's "nuclear triad".
Project 955 and 955A "Borey"
There are 3 in service, 3 are under construction, the planned composition of the series is 8...10 submarines.
The newest and modern project underwater strategic missile carrier all over the world. Design features and the noise characteristics of the SSBN Project 955 allow us to classify them as a new, fourth generation of nuclear submarines. Armament: D-30 missile system with 16 R-30 Bulava submarine-launched ballistic missiles. New Borey boats and solid fuel rockets are unveiled new era in the domestic underwater.
Project 667BDRM "Dolphin"
There are 7 units in service (1981-90).
The combat core of naval strategic nuclear forces. Carriers of three-stage submarine-launched ballistic missiles R-29RMU2 "Sineva". The main trump card of the Sineva in comparison with the solid fuel Trident and Bulava is their outstanding energy and mass characteristics (launch mass/firing range/throw weight), due to fundamental properties liquid fuel.
K-407 "Novomoskovsk" (project 667BDRM) after undergoing repairs and modernization
Project 667BDR "Squid"
Three boats that entered service in 1980-82, armed with the D-9R complex (16 silo-type launchers with R-29R liquid-fuel missiles). It is expected that the outdated Kalmars will be gradually withdrawn from combat service and replaced by the newest Boreis.
Project 941UM
TK-208 "Dmitry Donskoy" is the last of the heavy Akula-class SSBNs, converted into a launch stand for testing the Bulava SLBM.
Nuclear-powered cruise missile submarines (SSGNs) - 8 units, all belonging to Project 949A Antey (1986-96). The famous "aircraft carrier killers", each of which carries 24 Granit anti-ship missiles.
Multipurpose nuclear submarines- 21 units. A diverse family represented by representatives of five projects:
Ave. 671RTM(K) - four submarines. Planned withdrawal from the fleet;
Ave. 945 and 945A - four submarines with titanium hulls. A deep modernization is underway with the installation of modern systems and. All Condors and Barracudas will be back in service by the beginning of the next decade;
Ave. 971 "Pike-B" - twelve ships. Nine are in active service, three are in reserve and undergoing decade-long repairs. Another submarine (K-152 Nerpa) was leased to India. At the time of construction (80-90), "Pike-B" were the most formidable and advanced submarines in their class. They remain the same today, adjusted for age. There are several modifications (“Improved Pike”), some representatives of the project are currently undergoing modernization under various programs;
Ave. 885 "Ash". Fourth generation multi-purpose nuclear submarine equipped with the Kalibr missile system. The Yasen boat claims to be the best in its class among all foreign analogues. Currently there is one ship of this type in service (K-560 Severodvinsk). At the shipyards there are three more buildings being built according to the updated project 885M Yasen-M. The planned composition of the series is 8 submarines;
K-560 "Severodvinsk"
Nuclear submarines special purpose - 2 units:
Carrier of deep-sea stations BS-136 "Orenburg" (converted from the missile carrier Project 667BDR);
Nuclear deep-sea station AS-12 "Losharik" (project 10831), maximum diving depth 6000 m, no weapons.
Carrier boat BS-136 "Orenburg"
At the moment, another unfinished nuclear missile carrier K-139 Belgorod (project 09852) is being converted according to a special project.
20 units, including:
18 "Varshavyanka" (projects 877 and 636.3);
1 B-585 "St. Petersburg" (project 677 "Lada") - in trial operation in the Northern Fleet;
1 B-90 "Sarov" (Project 20120) - experimental diesel-electric submarine for testing new types of weapons.
In the coming years domestic Navy should be replenished with six more diesel-electric submarines, among which there will be two Ladas and four Varshavyankas.
Pike, Borey, Varshavyanka!
US Navy submarine component
Nuclear ballistic missile submarines (SSBNs - correspond to domestic SSBNs). The only type in service is "Ohio". There are 14 boats in service, built between 1981 and 1997.
The Ohio-Trident-2 combination can be considered the standard of naval nuclear weapons. The carrier is a unique boat, until recently considered the most secretive of the existing nuclear submarines. And a solid-fuel missile with unsurpassed weight and dimensions and performance characteristics (it is no coincidence that 24 SLBMs fit on board the not-largest Ohio).
Nuclear submarines with cruise missiles (SSGN)- 4 units. They were converted from Ohio-class SSBNs. Each carries 154 Tomahawks.
Multipurpose nuclear submarines (or, according to the original classification, fast attack submarine - high-speed underwater hunters). Currently, the US Navy has three main types of multi-purpose nuclear submarines in service, including:
41 boat types "Los Angeles"(1981-96). Small, stealthy and reliable, underwater hunters have been the backbone of the US submarine force for 30 years. Most of the surviving Los Angeles aircraft belong to the Superior LA subseries. Equipped with vertical launchers for storing and launching Tomahawk missiles;
11 boat types "Virginia" three different sub-series (1997-2014). New American boats specialize in combat operations in the coastal zone: reconnaissance, sabotage operations and coastal strikes. Like their predecessors, the Los Angeles, the Virginias have 12 Tomahawk missile silos installed in the bow. In total, it is planned to build 30+ nuclear submarines of this type, the last boats (subseries 5) will be able to carry up to 40 cruise missiles;
Three "Sea wolves". The white elephants of the American fleet, formally considered the most advanced underwater hunters and the world's first multi-purpose 4th generation nuclear submarines. In fact, they are extremely expensive, piecemeal structures that suffer from many “childhood diseases”. The last SeaWolf-class ship, Jimmy Carter, entered service in 2003 as a special operations boat.
Diesel-electric submarines
Due to its pronounced offensive orientation, the American fleet has completely abandoned diesel-electric submarines. The last diesel-electric submarine "Growler" was built in 1958.
Emergency ascent of the Los Angeles-class nuclear submarine
The tense situation off the coast of Syria and the approaching aircraft carrier strike group of the American fleet are forcing more and more discussion of the question: “What if clashes suddenly break out, what can they do?” Russian forces. Colleagues from the business newspaper Vzglyad interviewed experts on this matter. Realnoe Vremya brings this publication to the attention of readers.
The carrier strike group (ACG), led by the aircraft carrier Harry Truman, began its movement towards Syria. Options for how the Syrian air defense will deal with the hundreds of cruise missiles fired by this AUG are being seriously discussed. But does Russia (if necessary, of course) have at least a minimal chance of destroying the American aircraft carrier itself? And if so, what is needed for this?
An American attack on Syria is, fortunately, only a hypothetical possibility. But not only the question of how to preserve our ships stationed in Syria is not idle. Ordinary people and experts inevitably ask themselves: does Russia have the military and technical capabilities to counter such a formidable weapon as the American carrier strike group? After all, it should become the main instrument of military suppression of Syria, and it is possible that Russia will have to directly counteract this squadron.
“To organize military operations, one ship or one submarine cannot do the job. It is imperative to create a group of heterogeneous forces - submarines, naval aviation, surface ships. By joint efforts we can solve this problem - disabling an aircraft carrier,” former commander of the Black Sea Fleet (1998-2002) Admiral Vladimir Komoyedov emphasized in a comment to the Vzglyad newspaper. Theoretically, it is possible to hit an enemy ship without such a group, but the probability is extremely low. “It’s possible by chance - from a submarine, a missile from the shore, from an airplane. Theoretically, one missile is enough, especially our supersonic anti-ship missiles. But for serious organization of combat operations at sea, I emphasize, a group is needed,” says Komoyedov.
“Theoretically, one missile is enough, especially our supersonic anti-ship missiles. But for serious organization of combat operations at sea, I emphasize, a group is needed,” says Komoyedov. Photo ruspekh.ru
There are currently about 15 Russian warships and support vessels operating in the Mediterranean Sea. They are part of the permanent operational formation - the Mediterranean squadron of the Black Sea Fleet. The main striking force is the patrol frigates "Admiral Grigorovich" and "Admiral Essen", equipped missile systems"Caliber-NK". Diesel-electric submarines of the Varshavyanka project and nuclear submarines of the Shchuka-B project are equipped with the Kalibr-PL complex. As their combat weapons, "Caliber" can use both missiles for firing at ground targets and anti-ship missiles. It is known, in particular, that the complex located on the Admiral Essen is equipped with anti-ship missiles with a range of up to 300 kilometers.
Complexes should also be mentioned coastal defense, deployed in Syria: "Bal", equipped with Kh-35 "Uran" anti-ship missiles, with a firing range of 120 kilometers, and "Bastion" with Yakhont missiles - up to 300 kilometers.
At sea the task is more difficult. The Zircon hypersonic missile, which is currently being developed, can also be considered an effective means of destruction, and the Granit cruise anti-ship missile is still effective (effective firing range up to 700 km). Surface ships are equipped with “Granites” - in particular, the missile cruiser “Moskva” and the nuclear-powered missile cruiser “Peter the Great”. These ships are not currently in the Mediterranean Sea, but it is necessary to remember them in such a purely speculative analysis, because “Granit” is still the most powerful anti-ship missile in service with the Russian Navy.
Is this enough to effectively neutralize the AUGs of the Americans and their allies? According to Admiral Komoyedov, it is completely insufficient. An aircraft carrier always sails alongside escort ships, and such groups include up to a dozen escort ships. These can be cruisers, destroyers, frigates, and without fail - multi-purpose submarines and Hawkeye-type early warning aircraft (AWACS). All these ships are equipped with hundreds of launchers for both anti-aircraft, anti-ship and attack missiles, not to mention the main striking force of such an AUG - carrier-based aircraft.
Surface ships are equipped with “Granites” - in particular, the missile cruiser “Moskva” and the nuclear-powered missile cruiser “Peter the Great”. Photo fb.ru
Admiral Komoyedov points out: “Each US aircraft carrier strike group has a defense depth of 1.5 thousand kilometers. But our range of launching missiles from surface ships and submarines against aircraft carriers is within 300-500 km.”
In other words, the American aircraft carrier group is capable of detecting any surface ship one and a half thousand kilometers away (or even more - thanks to AWACS aircraft) and almost immediately destroying the enemy at a completely safe distance. At the very least, Russian surface ships do not pose a real threat to American aircraft carriers - they simply will not be allowed within the distance required to launch missiles.
So the question is complex, Admiral Komoyedov summarizes. Although, he adds, it is not hopeless. Methods for destroying American AUGs were actively studied by the Soviet military many years ago. “At one time, entire naval operations were planned to defeat the AUG. A huge outfit stood out, especially in the Atlantic: these were maneuverable groups of submarines, aviation, and surface ships,” Komoyedov points out.
In the USSR, the emphasis was placed on two instruments of struggle. Firstly, these are the already mentioned sea-based anti-ship missiles, the same “Granites”. Secondly, air-launched cruise missiles, which were equipped with Tu-16 missile-carrying bombers and then Tu-22M3 bombers. There was a whole class of naval missile-carrying aircraft (MPA), which, however, was abolished in 2012.
Theoretically, today the MPA function should be performed by long-range aviation aircraft. But in Soviet times, naval missile-carrying aircraft had up to five thousand aircraft, and long-range aviation of the Russian Federation currently has only 139 aircraft in service (according to estimates International Institute Strategic Studies IISS). Russian military expert Alexey Leonkov in his commentary gave an even more modest estimate - 60-65 vehicles. How many of these vehicles are actually combat-ready is unknown. It remains to add that work on surface targets is only one of the tasks of long-range aviation, and not a priority, unlike specialized MRA.
Can the Russian Navy, based on its current capabilities, resist the American aircraft carrier group? A source from the Vzglyad newspaper, close to management Naval aviation The Russian Federation, like Admiral Komoyedov, believes that this matter is extremely difficult.
Alexey Leonkov estimates the Russian long-range aviation at the moment at 60-65 aircraft. Photo jpgazeta.ru
Only Antey-class nuclear submarines equipped with Granites (and, perhaps in the future, Zircons) have the greatest chance of completing the task of destroying an aircraft carrier. But here it is necessary to fulfill a whole set of conditions. Firstly, the submarines must go to sea and approach the deployment area undetected and not intercepted by enemy hunter boats. This is an extremely difficult task. Secondly, there must be several submarines to ensure required quantity missiles in a salvo. Thirdly, these submarine cruisers need to approach the target within salvo distance - about 700 kilometers. And finally, the most important thing is that you need to have accurate information about the location of targets at the moment of missile launch. In other words, attack submarines need external target designation, otherwise the missiles will miss the target.
Now, according to a source from the Vzglyad newspaper, close to the Russian Ministry of Defense, there is a gap in this critically important area. However, it seems that in recent years the most important shortcoming of our Navy - the lack of target designation systems - is beginning to improve. For these purposes, in the summer of 2017, Kamov began creating a sea-based drone helicopter based on the Ka-27. A year earlier, another model began to be used - a helicopter complex radar reconnaissance ground targets Ka-35. Previously, our Armed Forces had nothing similar - and, note, this vehicle has already been tested in Syria.
But, as Sergei Denisentsev, an expert at the Center for Analysis of Strategies and Technologies (AST), previously noted in a commentary to the Vzglyad newspaper, a “stronger solution” would be to create an aircraft similar to the American Hawkeye or its Soviet analogue Yak-44, which never was embodied. The creation of machines responsible for target designation will make our anti-ship strike forces “sighted” and, therefore, capable of solving this problem.
One could also assume that the A-50U and Tu-204R aircraft, intended, among other things, for these purposes and in at the moment working in Syria.
However, do not forget that these machines will be the first and main goal American fighter aircraft at the first signs of a real attack on the AUG.
Thus, it is worth honestly admitting: theoretically, Russia has a chance of hitting an American aircraft carrier, but the likelihood of such an attack being successful is extremely low.
"Sight"
Mikhail Moshkin
The modern navy is designed to perform three main tasks: providing strategic deterrence as one of the components of the “nuclear triad”, supporting ground forces in local conflicts and performing “decorative” functions, otherwise called “flag display”. In some cases Maybe :
Participation in international operations(clearing the Suez Canal or Chittagong Bay);
- protection of territorial waters (displacement of the cruiser Yorktown);
Search and rescue operations (rescuing the crew of Alpha Foxtrot 586 or searching for landing capsules spacecraft splashed down in the Indian Ocean)
Special operations (destroying the USA-193 satellite in low Earth orbit or escorting tankers in the Persian Gulf during the Iran-Iraq War).
Based on the above, it seems interesting to find out how the two most powerful fleet in the world - US Navy and Navy Russian Federation. And this is by no means a ridiculous joke.
The Russian Navy is still the second largest navy, and, oddly enough, is still capable of carrying out assigned missions in the near and far sea zone.
The colossal difference in the ship composition of the Russian Navy and the US Navy is due, first of all, to the difference in views on the use of the fleet on both sides of the ocean. America is primarily a maritime power, separated from the rest of the world by two deep saltwater "anti-tank ditches." Hence the obvious desire to have a powerful fleet.
Secondly, and this has been discussed for a long time, the power of the modern US Navy is excessive. At one time, “Mistress of the Seas,” Great Britain was guided by the “Two power standard” - the numerical superiority of the British fleet over the next two most powerful fleets. Currently, the American fleet has numerical superiority over all the world's fleets combined!
But what does this matter in the age of nuclear weapons? A direct military conflict between developed powers threatens to inevitably develop into a global war with the destruction of all human civilization. And what difference does it make how the battle between Chinese and American aircraft carriers ended if nuclear warheads have already fallen on Beijing and Washington?
At the same time, for local wars, a super-powerful, ultra-modern fleet is not required - “shooting sparrows from a cannon” or “hammering nails with a microscope” - the inexhaustible folk imagination has long chosen definitions for such a situation. IN existing form, The US Navy causes more damage to the United States itself than to its adversaries.
As for Russia, we are a traditional “land” power. It is not surprising that, despite its numerous exploits and loud words for the glory of sailors, our Navy almost always remained in a secondary role. The outcome of the Patriotic War of 1812 or the Great Patriotic War was by no means decided on the open sea. As a result, limited funding programs Navy (however, this was enough to have the second largest fleet in the world).
“There are two types of ships - submarines and targets,” says naval wisdom. The submarine component is the basis of the fleet of any modern state. It is the submarines that are entrusted with the honorable position of “gravediggers of Humanity” - an invisible and invulnerable warship is capable of incinerating all living things on the entire continent. And a squadron of strategic missile submarines is guaranteed to destroy life on planet Earth.
The Russian Navy has seven operational SSBNs of projects 667BDR "Kalmar" and 667BDRM "Dolphin", as well as one new missile carrier of project 955 "Borey". Two more missile carriers are being repaired. Two Boreys are under construction, at a high level of readiness.
Submarine - sea thunderstorm
Steely eyes under a black cap
The US Navy has 14 such boats - the legendary Ohio-class strategic missile carriers. A dangerous opponent. Extremely secretive, reliable, with an ammunition load of 24 Trident II missiles.
And yet... parity! A slight difference in the number of submarines no longer matters: 16 missiles fired from the 667BRDM or 24 missiles fired from the Ohio submarine is guaranteed death for everyone.
But miracles don't happen. In terms of multi-purpose submarines, the Russian Navy is a complete loser: only 26 multi-purpose nuclear submarines and underwater cruise missile carriers against 58 nuclear submarines of the US Navy. The Americans have not only numbers on their side, but also quality: Twelve boats are the latest fourth-generation nuclear submarines of the Virginia and Seawolf type, which in terms of their combined characteristics are the best in the world. Another four American boats are converted Ohio-class missile carriers, carrying Tomahawk cruise missiles instead of ballistic Tridents - a total of 154 missiles in 22 silos + 2 airlock chambers for combat swimmers. We have no analogues of such technology.
Main caliber!
However, not everything is so hopeless - the Russian Navy has nuclear boats special destination - the odious "Losharik" and its carrier - BS-64 "Podmoskovye". The new Project 885 Yasen nuclear submarine is undergoing testing.
In addition, Russian sailors have their own “trump card” - 20 diesel-electric submarines, unlike America, where diesel-electric submarines have not been built for half a century. But in vain! "Dieselyukha" is a simple and cheap means for operations in coastal waters, in addition, due to a number of technical reasons (lack of powerful pumps for the reactor circuits, etc.) - it is much quieter than a nuclear submarine.
Conclusion: it could have been better. New Ashes, modernization of titanium Barracudas, new developments in the field of creating small diesel-electric submarines (Lada project). We look to the future with hope.
Let's move on to the sad part - the surface component of the Russian Navy is simply a laughing stock compared to the US Navy. Or is this an illusion?
The Legend of Elusive Joe. The Russian Navy has one heavy aircraft carrier"Admiral Kuznetsov". Aircraft carrier or aircraft-carrying cruiser? In principle, the Soviet-Russian TAVKR differs from a classic aircraft carrier only in that it is weaker.
The Americans have ten aircraft carriers! All of them are atomic. Each one is twice the size of our Kuznetsov. AND…
And... the elusive Joe cannot be caught, because no one needs him. Who are you going to fight with? American aircraft carriers in the open ocean? With seagulls and albatrosses? Or with the unfinished Indian Vikramaditya?
Objectively, there are no opponents for the Nimitz in the open ocean. Let him plow the endless surface of water and please American pride - until the US National Debt reaches 30 trillion. dollars and the US economy will not collapse.
But sooner or later, the Nimitz will approach the enemy shore and... attack sunny Magadan? For purely continental Russia, of the entire American fleet, only the Ohio strategic submarines are dangerous.
However, in any local conflict, the nuclear superaircraft carrier Nimitz turns out to be of little use. Which, however, is understandable - the power of the Nimitz carrier-based air wing is simply insignificant compared to the thousands of combat aircraft and helicopters of the US Air Force that tore Iraq, Libya and Yugoslavia to shreds.
And here are more worthy representatives of the class of aircraft carrier ships - 17 universal landing helicopter carriers/dock ships of the Tarawa, Wasp, Austin, San Antonio types... Like the promising Russian Mistral, only twice as large.
At first glance, a colossal offensive force!
But there is one caveat: let all 17 of these ships try to land troops (17 thousand marines and 500 armored vehicles) somewhere on the coast of Iran. Or better yet, China. Blood will flow like a river. The second Dieppe is secured.
Note. Dieppe - landing operation carried out in August 1942. Three hours after the landing, half of the 6,000 paratroopers were killed or wounded, and the Allies abandoned their tanks and equipment and evacuated the French coast in horror.
Landing operations using small forces are almost always doomed to failure. And the Americans know this better than us - they prepared for the war with Iraq for six months, tormented the enemy from the air for two months, dropping 141 thousand tons of explosives on him, and then across the Iraqi border from Saudi Arabia an avalanche of a million soldiers and 7,000 armored vehicles poured out.
USS Essex (LHD-2) - Wasp-class amphibious assault ship
In view of the above, the combat value of the amphibious "Wasp" and "San Antonio" is not too great - it is useless to use them against any serious countries. But using such equipment against the Papuans is stupid and wasteful; it is much easier to land troops at the capital airport of some Zimbabwe.
But how do Americans fight? Who delivers thousands of tanks and hundreds of thousands of soldiers to foreign shores? It is clear who are the fast transports of the Sealift Command. In total, the Americans have 115 such ships. Formally, they do not apply to to the navy, but they always walk in a tight security ring of destroyers and frigates of the US Navy - otherwise one enemy torpedo will send a division of the American army to the bottom.
Military Sealift Command fast transport squadron. Each is the size of the aircraft-carrying cruiser "Admiral Kuznetsov"
The Russian Navy, of course, does not have such ships - but it does have Large landing ships (LHDK) As many as 19 units! They are old, rusty, slow. But they cope perfectly with their functions - to demonstrate the flag and deliver a batch of equipment and military equipment in front of the entire indignant Western world. The BDK has neither normal air defense nor cruise missiles - nothing except primitive artillery. Guarantee them security- the status of the Russian Federation as a nuclear power. Try to touch the ships under St. Andrew's flag!
No one is going to take them into real battle - where the 40,000-ton Wasp cannot cope, our large landing ship (displacement 4,000 tons) has nothing to do.
Next important point- The Russian Navy has only 15 surface ships in the far sea zone: cruisers, destroyers, large anti-submarine ships. Of these, only 4 can provide zonal air defense of the squadron in open sea areas - the heavy nuclear-powered missile cruiser "Peter the Great" and three missile cruisers of Project 1164 - "Moscow", "Varyag" and "Marshal Ustinov".
The US Navy has 84 such ships, including 22 Ticonderoga guided missile cruisers and 62 Orly Burke class destroyers.
American cruisers and destroyers carry from 90 to 122 UVP Mk.41 cells, each of which hides cruise Tomahawks, ASROC anti-submarine missile torpedoes or Standard family anti-aircraft missiles, capable of hitting targets at a range of up to 240 km and destroying objects beyond the Earth's borders atmosphere. The Aegis integrated digital weapons control system, coupled with advanced radar and versatile weapons, makes the Ticonderoga and Eagle Burke the deadliest of all US Navy surface ships.
BOD "Admiral Panteleev" and USS Lassen (DDG-82)
15 versus 84. The ratio, of course, is shameful. Despite the fact that the last contemporary of our large anti-submarine ships, the Spruance-class destroyer, was decommissioned by the Americans back in 2006.
But do not forget that the likelihood of a direct military conflict between the US Navy and the Russian Navy is vanishingly small - no one wants to die in a thermonuclear hell. Consequently, the Orly Burke super-destroyers can only powerlessly observe the actions of our ships. In extreme cases, it is dangerous to maneuver and attack with curse words over radio communications.
At one time, a small one was enough to neutralize the Yorktown supercruiser (Ticonderoga type). patrol ship“Selfless” and its brave commander V. Bogdashin - the Soviet patrolman broke through the American’s left side, deformed the helipad, demolished the Harpoon missile launcher and prepared for a second attack. No repetition was required - Yorktown hastily left the inhospitable territorial waters of the Soviet Union.
By the way, about patrol ships and frigates.
The Russian Navy has 9 frigates, corvettes and patrol ships, not counting hundreds of small artillery, anti-submarine and missile ships, missile boats and sea minesweepers.
The US Navy, of course, has more such ships: 22 elderly frigates of the Oliver Hazard Perry class and three littoral combat ships of the LCS class.
LCS, in every sense, is an innovative thing - a speed of 45-50 knots, universal weapons, a spacious helipad, modern electronics. The US Navy is expected to add a fourth ship of this type this year. In total, the plans announced the construction of 12 marine supermachines.
As for the Perry frigates, they were greatly weakened over time. lately. In 2003, their missile weapons were completely removed. Several ships of this type are decommissioned every year, and by the beginning of the next decade, all Perrys must be sold to the allies or scrapped.
Another important point is naval base aviation.
The Russian Navy's aviation is armed with about fifty Il-38 and Tu-142 anti-submarine aircraft (let's be realistic - how many of them are in flight condition ?)
The US Navy has 17 squadrons of anti-submarine aircraft, maritime electronic reconnaissance aircraft and relay aircraft, totaling one and a half hundred aircraft, excluding reserve and Coast Guard aviation.
The aircraft is armed with the legendary P-3 Orion, as well as its special reconnaissance modification, the EP-3 Aries. Currently, new P-8 Poseidon anti-submarine jet aircraft have begun to enter service.
P-3 Orion and P-8 Poseidon. Change of generations
Long-range anti-submarine aircraft Tu-142 accompanied by Phantoms
Even in theory, the naval base aviation of the US Navy is second to the patrol and anti-submarine aviation of the Russian Navy. And this is truly a shame. I’m not sure about the anti-submarine capabilities of the Orions and Poseidons (where were they looking when the Pike-B surfaced in the Gulf of Mexico?), but in terms of search and rescue capabilities, the Americans have them an order of magnitude higher.
When the IL-38, which is still able to take off, searches for a week and cannot find rafts from a shipwreck or an ice floe with fishermen - no, guys, this cannot be done.
The conclusions in this whole story will be contradictory: on the one hand, the Russian Navy in its current state is not capable of conducting any serious combat operations far from its native shores. On the other hand, Russia is not going to and does not plan to fight on the other side of the world. All our modern interests are in the near abroad, in the Caucasus and Central Asia.
Demonstration of the flag, participation in international maritime salons and naval exercises, delivery of military help friendly regimes, humanitarian operations, evacuation Russian citizens from the zone of military conflicts, protection of the territorial waters of the Russian Federation (where the pack ice does not come close to the shore), hunting for pirate feluccas - the Russian Navy can do everything (or almost everything) that the fleet should do in peacetime.
Russian fleet at international exercises
(in the lower illustration - at the head of the second column there is a BOD pr. 1155)
Loading...
