Briefly about the comparison of the fleets of Russia and the United States. American analysts: the Russian fleet is strong, this is an unrecognized truth American and Russian ships

Now the Russian Navy has 62 submarines, 39 of which are nuclear-powered. Plus, 17 new submarines are currently being built, 13 of them nuclear-powered. By 2023, Russia will have about 80 submarines, 52 of them nuclear-powered.

"Condor", "Borey", "Varshavyanka"

Clickable

The American communications fleet, with a pronounced offensive focus, has completely abandoned diesel-electric submarines. The last diesel-electric submarine "Growler" was built in 1958.

The US now has 69 submarines (all nuclear-powered). In 2010 there were 74, but Americans are decommissioning old boats faster than they are building new ones. There are currently only 4 new submarines under construction in the United States.

By 2023, America will have 58 submarines, and by 2029 their number will drop to 55 (41 strike and 14 old-old Ohio SSBNs). At the same time, part of the submarines is tied to the aircraft carrier groups that they cover.

An interesting comparison of the performance characteristics of the PLATRK "Ash", "Virginia" and "Sivulf":

Length: 140 m - 115 m - 108 m
Width: 13 m - 10.5 m - 12.2 m
Surface displacement: 8600 t - 7000 t - 7500 t
Underwater displacement: 13800 t - 8000 t - 9100 t
Surface speed: 16 knots - n/a - 18 knots
Underwater speed: 31 knots - 29.5 knots - 34 knots
Working depth - 520 m - n / a - 480 m
Maximum depth: 600 m - 490 m - 600 m
Crew: 64 people - 120 people - 126 people
Autonomy: 100 days - n / a - n / a

Armament:
10 TA, 30 torpedoes, 32 KR launchers
4 TA, 26 torpedoes, 12 KR launchers
8 TA, 50 torpedoes or 50 KR

This was stated by US Naval Analysis Center scientists Michael Kofman and Jeffrey Edmonds in their article for The National Interest.

Russia still depends on ships inherited from the Soviet Union. But their place is gradually taken by a new fleet - both surface and underwater. Significantly different from the previous one, this fleet will have its own strategy.

The United States should not be afraid of the Russian Navy, but it is worth being respectful, as well as studying what Moscow is doing with its Navy.

Ignorance of the opponent's abilities and the logic underlying his steps at some point can turn into an unpleasant surprise. For such an experience, you usually have to pay with your life.

Imagine how, in the not too distant future, several Kalibr missiles are approaching at supersonic speeds American destroyer. At this point, the ship's commander is unlikely to comfort himself with excerpts from articles claiming that the Russian fleet is no more. Then the experts will have reason to speculate when it turns out that Russia spent not much money on the corvettes that carried out the missile salvo, and the United States lost a ship that cost a huge amount, analysts write.

According to the authors of the publication, the modern Navy of the Russian Federation is designed not to compete with the US Navy, but to counteract them. It is also designed to support the strategy of a Eurasian land power in the 21st century. Russia remains a great power, and its armed forces are capable of inflicting significant damage on the enemy. The fleet plays an important role in this strategy. It should not be underestimated, despite its shortcomings.

Experts identify four main tasks of the Russian Navy: protecting sea approaches and coastal waters, delivering long-range precision strikes using nuclear and conventional weapons, demonstrating power with the help of a submarine fleet, and protecting sea-based nuclear deterrents. Another appointment, in their opinion, is in the field of diplomacy.

Thus, in accordance with the concept, the Russian fleet should combine defense in depth, long-range anti-ship missiles, ground-based aircraft, submarines, coastal missile launchers and mines. Further, the Navy is getting more and more opportunities to strike long-range strikes against enemy infrastructure using conventional weapons, the authors say.

They also emphasize that Russia is the most advanced in technical equipment opponent of the United States under water and has the world's second nuclear submarine fleet.

The modernization of the Russian fleet began with a program for the construction of corvettes and frigates. Analysts call this step "logical", noting that "there are a lot of things in these ships that are not evident."

The Russians have learned well that the ship does not need a large displacement to install powerful missile systems. The surface fleet is built on the principle of integrated combat capabilities. This structure includes launchers with Onyx and Caliber missiles, Pantsir-M anti-aircraft missile and gun systems for target air defense, Redut air defense systems for air defense, as well as Paket-NK anti-torpedo defense systems. More large ships to expand the range of tasks, they are equipped with the Poliment-Redut air defense system and radar with a phased antenna array. Corvettes have a short autonomous navigation, but the firepower-price ratio is very good. They can safely perform their tasks, barely leaving the base, the authors of the article believe.

The shipbuilding program in the Russian Federation is lagging behind plans due to sanctions and the termination of military cooperation with Ukraine, but has survived the most difficult times. The Russian defense industry has managed to find opportunities to start producing its own components.

The Russian fleet, analysts say, continues to suffer from the construction of small batches of ships different types, similar in tasks and displacement. However, this approach gives the defense complex the opportunity to provide work for shipbuilders.

The authors of the article call submarines the best ships of the Russian Navy: nuclear submarines of projects 671RTM (K) and 945 "Barracuda", 941 "Shark", 949 "Granit" and "Antey", strategic submarine cruisers of projects 667BDRM "Dolphin", 667BDR "Kalmar", 955 "Borey". Diesel-electric submarines are represented by projects 877 and 636.3. Kofman and Edmonds draw attention to the prevailing opinion that in the next 13 years most of these submarines will become obsolete, and they will not succeed in replacing them.

If suddenly these experts are wrong, let's say: those who believe that they can easily defeat the Russian nuclear fleet should take more life rafts with them, analysts write, citing facts about the modernization that will allow most of the Russian submarines to avoid decommissioning.

The Project 945 Barracuda boats will definitely remain, since their titanium hulls will outlive many readers of this article, the authors ironically.

In addition, Russia is building new submarines, including ships of the Yasen project, and is designing a fifth-generation submarine that will become the basis for other strategic submarines. Construction, the authors note, is "very good."

Shipbuilders of the Russian Federation are able to deliver a project 636 diesel-electric boat in about a year and a half and quickly fulfill an order for six such submarines with Caliber missiles, which can hit a significant part of important targets in Europe. But Special attention should be drawn to the class "Ash". Russia can build a large number of such boats, but this is no reason for complacency. A single such submarine in the Atlantic could strike the United States with 32 nuclear weapons, Kofman and Edmonds argue.

There are many shortcomings in the Russian Navy, analysts continue. But its prospects look very positive, since a fleet is being created that is optimally suited to the country's strategy.

Russia has been investing in systems to deter and intimidate more powerful maritime powers for decades. Therefore, when you once again hear that the Russian fleet is disappearing because the state is running out of money, and you want to test this theory, we strongly advise you to take a lifeline with you, the analysts summed up.

The most powerful navies, ground forces and air forces of the world. Everywhere appear types of the armed forces of the United States, China and Russia.

According to the magazine, the United States, China, Russia, Great Britain and Japan have the strongest navies. As the author of the article points out Kyle Mizokami, Russia ranks third because the basis of its current Navy is still Soviet ships, and the construction of new ones and their adoption into service is rather slow.

The list of the best ground forces includes the United States, China, India, Russia and the United Kingdom. The publication predictably considers the strongest American SV with a population of 535 thousand people. The infantry of the People's Liberation Army of China, in turn, boasts a strength of 1.6 million troops. Indian ground forces with 1.12 million troops are squeezed between traditional competitors - Pakistan and China, they have to constantly prove their ability to defend long territorial borders. The ground forces of the RF Armed Forces are currently receiving new modern weapons - they are quite well equipped and fully mechanized, and most importantly, they have solid combat experience. The number of the RF SV reaches 285 thousand people - half of the US army, the article says. The author of the material also emphasizes that the Armata universal combat platform will soon enter service with the Russian army, which will be able to perform the functions of a tank, infantry fighting vehicle and artillery.

The National Interest included only four countries in the ranking of the best air forces on the planet - the USA, Russia, China and Japan. At the same time, Mizokami added to the list not only the US Air Force, but also the aviation of the fleet and the Corps. marines. The US Air Force has 5.6 thousand aircraft, and the Navy has a fleet of 3.7 thousand aircraft.

According to NI, Russia's Aerospace Forces include 1,500 combat aircraft and 400 military helicopters. Despite the fact that the fleet has enough old MiG-29s, Su-27s and MiG-31s, Russian aviation has entered a period of steady modernization. One example is the Su-35, which combines best qualities. In addition, the Russian military is currently working on the fifth-generation T-50 fighter and the new PAK-DA strategic bomber.

- The NI rating of the strongest fleets in the world suggests that in China in recent times programs were rapidly implemented to create and update the Navy, which are currently assessed as forces capable of conducting operations far from their shores and resisting the United States, - says military expert, head of the department of Eurasian integration and development of the SCO of the Institute of CIS countries Vladimir Evseev. - Yes, indeed - new submarines and surface ships - destroyers and frigates - are being built in series. The Chinese submarine fleet is generally the largest in the world - it includes more than 70 diesel and nuclear submarines.

However, the Russian Navy has the superiority in submarines in terms of long-range anti-ship missiles and the sophistication of submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs), which can hit any part of the globe. By the way, according to this indicator, the American Trident-2 D5 SLBMs with a maximum firing range with a full load of 7800 km, which are equipped with British Vanguard-type SSBNs, are superior to Chinese missiles. In addition, the Chinese aircraft carrier Liaoning (the Soviet Varyag) can hardly be called a full-fledged combat unit - based on a combination of factors, it can only effectively perform tasks in coastal areas. And for the British Navy, two aircraft carriers of the Queen Elizabeth type are still being built.

- Here, I would still put Russia in second place - in terms of combat and technical indicators, in terms of the possibility of information support. In my opinion, only the United States and Russia can now fight in real time. In addition, China lags behind Russia in precision weapons. Yes, the PLA Ground Forces are armed with missiles that can be equipped with both nuclear and conventional warheads, but the accuracy of domestic weapons systems is an order of magnitude higher.

The size of the army is an important indicator, but far from being the main one, it is compensated by the use of tactical nuclear weapons (TNW), of which the Russian army has quite a lot. In addition, let's pay attention to the effectiveness of the combat use of forces and means, the ability to conduct combat operations in different conditions and also combat experience. In this regard, for example, the Chinese and Indians are inferior to the same British.

According to the Air Force rating, I probably agree with the expert of the American edition. Still, the PLA Air Force, despite a huge leap forward, has problems with engine building, with transport aircraft, tankers, and also with strategic aviation, because the Chinese "strategists" H-6 are a copy of the Soviet Tu-16. Japan's position in this "air" rating is controversial: their Air Force is technically well equipped, but in terms of numbers they can hardly claim fourth place.

"Strategist" PLA Air Force Xian HY-6 (Photo: ru.wikipedia.org)

- Without taking into account nuclear weapons, the list of countries by the strength of the Navy is correct, - believes military historian Alexander Shirokorad. - But in general, in terms of the number of pennants, China has the largest fleet, which has a lot of small ships in combat. As for the ground forces, in terms of their numbers, firepower and tactical nuclear weapons, Russia is in second place.

But there is a concept Leo Nikolaevich Tolstoy as "the spirit in the troops." According to this indicator, I would put the Japanese, Chinese and Israelis ahead, and only then the Russians (by the way, the largest army in the world - the Chinese - mostly still consists of contract soldiers, and with a big competition for a place). The morale of the Americans, despite the huge number of conflicts in which the United States has been involved all these years, leaves much to be desired. They are accustomed to the fact that locals are fighting at the forefront, as was the case in Afghanistan, as well as to complete superiority over the enemy in the sky and on the ground - in artillery. Of course, the United States has motivated and strong special forces units, but this is not enough in combined arms combat. True, the States have National Guard- the current reserve of the US Armed Forces, which is also involved in foreign operations.

- In my opinion, in the Navy ranking, the United States should take the first place without question, the second - China, the third - Japan, the fourth - South Korea and the fifth - Russia, - believes Deputy Director of the Institute for Political and Military Analysis Alexander Khramchikhin. - I take into account the fleet as such, the naval component of the strategic nuclear forces is a separate story.

Formally, the Russian fleet can even be put in second place, but due to geographical location of the country, our Navy is scattered across several theaters of military operations (theatre), which are not interconnected at all. Between European fleets, it is theoretically possible to cross the inland waterways of ships of small displacement, and that is just theoretically. By the way, the Indian Navy can even argue with the fleet of South Korea (the most powerful surface non-aircraft carriers are just South Korean destroyers), but the UK is not even in the top ten. The British Navy has long ceased to rule the seas. British military capabilities as a whole have been significantly reduced in recent years. But, in principle, this is a normal state, which fits into the pan-European trend of general and complete disarmament.

"SP": - In terms of ground forces, the UK's fifth place in the NI ranking also looks stretched, if you do not take separate special forces units ...

- I think that today the British ground forces are not even in the top thirty of the strongest. In the first place here is the United States, the second and third are shared by Russia and China, and the fourth should be India. I would give the fifth and sixth places to South Korea and North Korea, and the seventh to Israel. The ground forces of the North Atlantic Alliance are generally a mythical thing in which only American and Turkish troops are real.

As for the Air Force, the second or third is again shared by the Russian Federation and China (in terms of the number of combat aircraft of the PLA Air Force they are second, but third in quality), and the fourth is India. And here Japan is unclear: the basis of its fleet is the F-15, and, probably, it can only be placed at the end of the top ten. India, despite some of the obsolete aircraft and their decommissioning, has a huge air force, which in terms of numbers probably surpasses even the Russian Aerospace Forces.

F-15 fighter jets (Photo: Zuma/TASS)

Note that the North South Korea for all types of armed forces should be in the top ten. Of course, the DPRK has a rather specific fleet - "mosquito", however, it cannot be called weak.

I recently came across an article about the naval forces of Russia and the United States, you should read it and think about why a state that always declares truth, friendship, love, compassion, DEMOCRACY and WORLD PEACE in the end, 11 aircraft carriers with a crew of 5 thousand people in everyone. I think, probably, that other countries of the world community would quietly and peacefully accept these great feelings and concepts of the social world order.

What do you think?

US Navy - 286 warships, Russian Navy - 196.

However, comparing the US and Russian fleets by quantitative factors is pointless, since from the Russian side, the subject for comparison is completely, qualitatively absent, despite the beautiful quantitative factor.

The average age of the ships of the Russian Navy exceeds 25 years, while they were operated in conditions of total underfunding, no serious modernization was carried out, it was often not possible to carry out scheduled repairs and maintenance - the technical condition and combat capability of the Russian fleet is easy to imagine. For this parameter, comparison with the US Navy is impossible. Complex exercises and campaigns over the past two decades can be counted on the fingers of one hand. The combat training parameter is also completely not in favor of the Russian Navy.

The meaning of the existence of the US Navy is the projection of force anywhere in the world. Organizational structure, basing system and weapons - correspond to this task.

The meaning of the existence of the Russian fleet, in the form it is now, is unclear.

Strategic nuclear component:

In the US Navy, the strategic component is the entire fleet, incl. and surface ships, and aircraft carriers, and even potentially converted into missile platforms (arsenal ships) civilian container ships, lighters and tankers capable of carrying and using hundreds of Tomahawks.

The United States - up to half of the SSBNs are constantly in combat positions, the presence of US Navy forces in all regions, the basing system, and the developed airborne forces make it possible to provide them with information and cover, and therefore use, anywhere in the world.

For the Russian Navy, SSBNs - too expensive and vulnerable launch platform as a component of nuclear deterrence - by itself, without a developed surface cover, did not make sense 10 years ago. Under current conditions, they are only capable of firing from the quay wall, and then only if they are well covered. "Groza AUG" "Kursk" was indicatively drowned with impunity in its own waters, being under the cover of the entire Northern Fleet.

Surface component:

US aircraft carriers: represented in all classes.

The Russian Federation - a single TAKR with an air group of a single composition, 4+ generation aircraft - in principle, is not a strike "aircraft carrier", despite the letter "A" in the name of the ship class. The reason is the air group - several units built! Yak-41M \ Yak? 141, Su-27K, Su-25TK and MiGs of the aircraft carrier version, she is not able to attack, but there is nothing for them to defend - the convoy wiring is irrelevant - there is nowhere, there is no need, and merchant ships were mostly cut down back in 90 -x, taken offshore, sold, gone for metal.

Cruisers URO USA: presented in all classes. A typical example is the Ticonderoga-class cruisers, with a practically frigate displacement of just over 10,000 tons - only universal launchers, of which firing from Asrok to Tomahawk is possible - 127 pieces, this is in addition to the Harpoon anti-ship missile system and air defense ABM "Standard" - "Aegis". There are no analogues in the Russian Navy and are not being built.

RF - TARK and RKR - Half a dozen surviving missile cruisers of the Soviet period, built more than a quarter of a century ago, laid down more than 30 years ago, designed according to solutions, concepts and platforms half a century ago. Modern Western URO destroyers surpass them in all respects, they cost less, they are incomparably cheaper in maintenance, they are orders of magnitude superior in terms of CIUS, in terms of system class, and in terms of artillery.

Anti-submarine ships - a Soviet legacy, can effectively deal with submarines of past generations. The relevance is almost zero, there are no escort tasks today, and it makes no sense for foreign submarines to break through to our naval bases - the launch lines of the missile defense system from enemy submarines are so far away and so controlled by the fleet of a potential enemy that the combat work of Russian anti-submarines to disrupt a missile strike is unlikely possible. In addition, despite a decent number, their dispersion over four fleets, nowhere except the Baltic, does not allow the creation of a dense anti-submarine curtain, and even there it is not relevant - who in of sound mind trample on the submarine in the Marquis puddle?

Destroyers are also an ancient Soviet heritage, performance characteristics are lower than the existing Western counterparts built in the mid-90s, not to mention modern ones. Intelligent systems- prehistoric, range and accuracy of artillery - a loss at times, about a hundred universal missile containers - there is no question of integration into a single combat network - one can only dream of, the ships are almost non-automated, the crews are bloated, the maintenance is expensive.

URO frigates and corvettes are the latest corvettes of the Russian Federation - a very strong class, not inferior, and even superior to Western counterparts, for example, project 20380 is rebalanced in terms of firepower and is more than universal - in addition to traditional specialized weapons systems, it has a UKKS (universal ship firing system ) for eight seats, which can carry up to 32 missiles various types in various combinations, the CICS "Sigma" is built on a network principle, provides a unified control of all the means of the ship, and simultaneous work on air, sea, and underwater targets, several CICS form a common connection network. It is planned to build 20 units. Here are just ordered such ships - only 5 units, for four possible spaced theaters, and one of the ships probably broke all records for construction time for its class - 7 years. With frigates, everything is somewhat more complicated - along with modern, truly universal and successful ships of project 22350, with incomprehensible goals, obsolete in all respects are being built, except for the presence of one Club-N complex, even before the launch of the project 11356 frigate, and the construction of project ships is completely inexplicable 11540. Probably really wanted to use the Soviet backlog.

Patrol ships - protection of borders, fisheries, border control. While the Soviet ones are working, replacement with modern corvettes and frigates is planned in clearly insufficient quantities, see above.

A relatively strong component is missile boats, since there is an excellent Soviet backlog in anti-ship missiles, so powerful that gray-haired designers of retirement age, almost no longer generating new ideas, are still effectively exploiting it. Hence, there is also a strong component - coastal-based anti-ship missile systems, incl. mobile.

Heavy missile-carrying platforms, arsenal ships are absent in the Russian Navy as a class, despite the developed and already operated UKKS. On the other hand, it is pointless to build Russian ships of this class, since the Russian Navy is unable to organize not only the cover of such ships in possible positional areas, but, in the absence of a basing system, even their transoceanic passage is questionable, for example, in an isolation situation similar to from the one that took place during the transition of the II Pacific Squadron.

Naval aviation - incomparable, the United States, with the aircraft carrier aviation of the Navy, with the aircraft carrier aviation of the Marine Corps, and coastal patrol - more than 3800 aircraft.

Coastal-based naval aviation of the Russian Federation is difficult to assess, it is unlikely that the situation there is much better than in the Air Force.

VTA, tanker aircraft, AWACS aircraft, electronic warfare aircraft - incomparably, single copies of the Russian Federation against a well-functioning operating system in the USA.

The Marine Corps is now seeking, apparently, it will suffer the fate of the Airborne Forces, and the GRU special forces brigades. Unlike the American one, it has absolutely no corps-level organization, no own carrier-based aviation, no VKS component, no EFV-class assets capable of launching tens of kilometers from the point without exposing carrier ships to excessive risk, quickly reaching the landing point, and performing fire tasks as light armored vehicles, or hundreds of thousands of trained professional personnel, or remotely controlled combat drones such as Crusher or Gladiator.

A strong component is amphibious assault ships, both quantitatively and qualitatively, against this background it is not clear why buy Mistrals. On the other hand, due to the lack of AUG, it is impossible to combat use, it is unrealistic to cover at the transition, during the landing, and there is nothing to provide air cover and strikes during the operation. The expediency of their existence in the absence of domestic aircraft carriers both in service and in construction is in doubt. Thrown away money.

Basing - USA - you can write dozens, if not hundreds of dissertations on the basing system of the US Navy.

The Russian Federation - the complete absence of a basing system in the oceans, the only contractual under-base in Syria - of incomprehensible significance - the Mediterranean Sea is closed by Suez, Gibraltar, and the entrance to it is the Bosphorus with a special passage regime for warships.

Information support is close to zero, and foreign bases, such as Lourdes and Cam Ranh, and positions are lost. Satellite constellations - one outdated and exhausted all planned resources, and one underdeployed - against several working ones. When was the last “hydrographic vessel” commissioned?

Development opportunities:

If in the administrative-command totalitarian USSR the capacities of shipbuilding plants were comparable to American ones, and the Soviet education system, unsurpassed anywhere in the world, made it possible to quickly prepare trained crews, then today, in a young democratic Russia of only 20 years old (as the President said in his New Year's greetings), shipbuilding managed to degrade, skilled workers have been destroyed, domestic heavy shipbuilding is no longer a class, subcontractors have been eliminated as a category, any competent designers and rare engineers trained by partly surviving professors of the Soviet school, at the first opportunity they are dumped to the west, and to the east , and as for the training of personnel - from medium-educated USE testers, and highly trained lawyer-managers mass-produced by a new community - the Russian people, it is a priori impossible to prepare warhead calculations for complex ship systems - through understanding, the missing education and fu functional illiteracy, and training is a long, tedious, and thankless task - besides, any serious modernization levels the results of previous training. The main backbone of competent technical specialists directly working at combat posts - the midshipman, are in the liquidation plan. Sergeant replacement is provided for them, but so far there is actually none.

The situation is very reminiscent of the beginning of the twentieth century - when five percent of the literate population was not enough to fill positions requiring technical literacy.

The difference of the situation is that then there was growth, both industrial and scientific, and now there is an ever more accelerating degradation.

Hence, the task of the fleet can be only one - in peacetime - the protection of exclusively coastal economic interests, in the military - antiamphibious defense of the first line, at the cost of unequivocal own death, until the Strategic Missile Forces, ground forces and aviation swing to repel the strike - this is irrefutable, any the fleet is not able to solve other tasks, it is not able to resist the fleets of NATO, or the United States, or Europe - or even Turkey alone, in case of losses in a protracted conflict - today neither losses in ships nor losses in people can be replenished, therefore, it makes sense to build a large number (tens) of ships of the corvette and frigate class in peacetime, and to remove all useless junk from the Navy as soon as possible, adapted only to divert budgetary funds.

In contact with

Alexander MOZGOVOI

TERRIBLE "HALIBUTS"

The passage of "Stary Oskol" was accompanied by the accompaniment of Western means mass media that frightened the world with the growing Russian underwater threat. However, this was also the case during the voyages of the first two halibuts. Just shift some of the emphasis. During the passage of the diesel-electric submarine "Novorossiysk" - the lead in the series - a stir in the foreign media was caused by the entry of a boat to replenish supplies and rest the crew in the Spanish port of Ceuta on the African coast (for more details, see the National Defense magazine No. 10/2015). Particularly zealous British editions. They saw in the actions of Madrid 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 Russian warship, which is subject to Western sanctions, like a pack of wolves with red flags. And then such impermissible liberalism!

The campaign of "Rostov-on-Don" (for details see the magazine "National Defense" No. 1/2016) caused amazement and shock in the West after this boat struck the Caliber-PL complex with 3M-14 cruise missiles on December 8 last year a powerful strike from under the water on the targets of the Islamic State terrorist organization banned in Russia. In the United States and other NATO countries, not without reason, they considered that this was not only an attack on the objects of a criminal gang, but also a warning to the North Atlantic bloc that jokes are bad with Russia, since 3M-14 missiles can be equipped not only with conventional, but also with nuclear warheads. parts.

Shortly before the start of the transition to the Black Sea and Stary Oskol carried out rocket firing. On May 6, the boat successfully hit an object at the Chizh training ground in the Arkhangelsk region. A day earlier, B-262 missiles 3M-54 with high precision hit a naval target.

It should be noted here that in order to save motor resources, Russian diesel-electric submarines of project 06363, after deep-sea and firing tests, make transitions from the Barents Sea to the Black Sea at economic speed. Most of the way is overcome in the surface position, and often in general in tow. So this time 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 off English Channel" was the headline of an article in London's The Telegraph on 8 June. This topic was picked up by other editions of the United Kingdom, as well as some European and American media. The tabloid The Sun, popular in the British Isles, even called the crew of the frigate Kent "English heroes". The commander of this HM ship, Commander Daniel Thomas modestly noted that "the Russian submarine was discovered thanks to a joint effort with NATO allies." Indeed, as soon as the B-262 entered the North Sea, the Dutch frigate Tromp "took" it for escort. And the "interceptor" Kent has already got the second batch. Meanwhile, British Defense Secretary Michael Fallon said: "This means that the Royal Navy remains vigilant in international and territorial waters to ensure the safety of the UK and protect us from a potential threat." In fact, the 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, "to intercept" Russian submarine on the way to the English Channel in the event of hostilities - a useless occupation and even, let's not be afraid of this word, archaic, from somewhere in the 60-80s of the last century.

This story had another aspect. The “Interception” took place shortly before Brexit – a referendum on whether or not Britain should leave the European Union. As UK Foreign Secretary Philip Hamond (in Theresa May's office he moved to the chair of the Chancellor of the Exchequer) made it clear: “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 a submarine in order to put pressure on the island inhabitants. And success has been achieved! Citizens of Elizabeth II by a majority vote said "Good bye!" European Union.

FOURTH BATTLE FOR THE ATLANTIC

But jokes aside, the picture that emerges, according to a number of Western naval experts, is bleak. In the June issue of this year, Proceedings magazine, which is published by the US Naval Institute, published an article by Vice Adm. analysis by Dr. Eleric Fritz. Their publication, which caused a noticeable response not only in special, but also in popular media, is called very eloquently - "The Fourth Battle of the Atlantic."

It is clear what the authors mean by this. The first battle means a tough confrontation between German submarines and the Entente Navy and the United States, which ended in victory for the latter. Under the second, of course, is the most difficult struggle of the anti-submarine forces of Great Britain and the United States against fascist submarines. In both cases, the battles for the Atlantic were accompanied by huge losses in Allied merchant tonnage. Twice England was nearly brought to her knees. The anti-submarine war 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 fleets US and NATO, the Soviet Union opposed hundreds of nuclear and diesel-electric submarines. And although this battle did not turn into a real war, the United States and its NATO allies, according to the authors of Proceedings, prevailed due to their high-class anti-submarine capabilities. The thesis is highly controversial, since third-generation nuclear submarines such as Soviet nuclear-powered ships projects 941, 667BDRM, 949, 945, 671RTM and 971, as well as diesel-electric submarines of project 877 were not inferior, and surpassed their foreign counterparts in a number of characteristics. And the anti-submarine weapons of the North Atlantic Alliance cannot be called amazing. The Soviet Union lost the third battle for the Atlantic not because of the technical imperfection of Soviet submarines, but because of the collapse of the 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 spending, 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 for the Atlantic. In an interview with The National Interest, which specializes in national security United States, the writing duo Proceedings developed their ideas. They argue that "the biggest threat to US and NATO navies in Europe is Russia's powerful submarine fleet and its new Denial of Access (A2/AD) bastions in the Kaliningrad region and elsewhere."

Here the admiral and the naval expert resort to the somewhat sophisticated American terminology that has become popular across the ocean over the past three or four years. Anti-access / area-denial (A2 / AD) - literally translated as "access denied / area blocked." In simple terms, this means that the armed forces of the United States and NATO 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 meaningless, since they are capable of hitting floating airfields at a distance of up to 2000 km. And now, according to foreign military experts, Russia has also created the same no-access zones around the Kaliningrad region, off the coast of Crimea, in the Kamchatka region, around the Syrian cities of Tartus and Latakia. In our opinion, full-fledged no-access zones in these areas are still far away, but the foundations for their creation certainly exist.

Let's focus on the question itself. If a country takes care of its security and builds defense lines, then it thereby creates a threat to the United States and its NATO allies. That is, military construction throughout the world should be subordinated exclusively to the interests of Washington and its partners. And nothing else. It's not even a paradox, it's paranoia.

According to Foggo, "the Russians are building a series of stealth diesel-electric submarines that are part of Russia's no-access strategy." Indeed, project 06363 diesel-electric submarines are excellent submarines capable of performing a wide range of tasks: patrolling, 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 shores of the country. But, in our opinion, in this particular case, the “halibuts” are attracted to the “Russian strategy of denying access” clearly by the ears, since it has nothing to do with the fourth battle for the Atlantic.

American experts did not forget the Russian multi-purpose nuclear-powered ships of project 885 "Ash". “The nuclear submarine Severodvinsk makes a strong impression,” the commander of the 6th Fleet states with obvious regret. “The submarines that the Russians have are of great concern to us,” sings along to Admiral Elerick Fritz, “because they are very combat-ready and are an extremely maneuverable tool of the Russian Armed Forces.”

A similar view is shared by the British Vice Admiral Clive Johnston, who heads NATO Naval Command. 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 Russian submarine activity in the North Atlantic: “The activity of Russian submarines in the North The Atlantic is currently 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 their technological characteristics and demonstrate a level of Russian potential that we have not seen before.”

PALE SHADOW

However, not all Western naval experts demonstrate such frank alarmist sentiments. There is a fairly large group of experts who do not share the views of their colleagues.

“The Russian submarine fleet, dormant for twenty years without sea voyages and money for military service, is starting to show signs of life again,” Michael Kofman of the Kennan Institute at the Woodrow Wilson Center said 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 fleet or completely abandoned the forces and means of conducting submarine warfare. Relations with Russia were politically irritable but militarily stable, and the Russian submarine fleet stood against the wall and in many cases rusted and died quietly at the piers.

It is hard not to agree 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 site Offiziere.ch published on December 16 last year comparison table, compiled by Louis Martin-Visian, on the ship composition of the Soviet Navy in 1990 and the Russian Navy in 2015. It has 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 has decreased from 657 units to 172, including the number of SSBNs has decreased from 59 units to 13, including the experimental "Dmitry Donskoy" project 941U, nuclear submarines with cruise missiles from 58 units to 6, multi-purpose nuclear-powered ships from 64 to 17, diesel-electric submarines from 59 to 20, cruisers (according to NATO practice, the author of the table also includes large anti-submarine ships of projects 1134A and 1134B) from 30 to 3, destroyers, taking into account the BOD projects 1155 and 11551 from 45 units to 14, frigates and corvettes (patrol ships) from 122 units to 10, large landing craft 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 to 68 units. Considering that these forces have practically not been updated and are “stretched” into five maritime and ocean theaters (see the US Navy intelligence map), talking about the return of the Russian Navy to the level of the Cold War times is simply ridiculous.

“The reality is,” Michael Kofman points out, “that the Russian submarine force today is just 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 Navy command, these numbers can impress 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 exaggerations at best. This is simply impossible. These forces are coming out of a coma, throwing down the traditional challenge to NATO in the Mediterranean and the North Atlantic, but they are dwarfed by the size of the Soviet Cold War submarine fleet.”

Michael Kofman draws attention to the fact that the construction of Russian SSBNs and SSBNs is behind schedule, "and the entire military shipbuilding program is in question due to Russian economic hardships." In an interview with the same edition of The National Interest, Kofman paid more attention project nuclear submarine 885 “Ash”, drawing attention to the fact that the lead submarine of this type was not only built for too long, but also tested for a very long time: “The first boat of the “Ash” type underwent sea trials for several years and only this year entered service.

It is impossible not to recall here that the Severodvinsk nuclear submarine was put into trial operation on December 30, 2013, and on June 17 next year She 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 "completed trial operation." So when did it happen: in June 2014 or in March 2016? Here it should be noted that in the official statement of the press service of the Northern Fleet dated March 19 this year, it was not 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 put into operation in advance, since President Vladimir Putin was expected to arrive at the Northern Fleet, and it was like - that's embarrassing.

Drawing attention to the low pace of construction of the Yasen-class nuclear submarine, Michael Kofman says: “Each subsequent boat, in fact, is built in a handicraft way. Who knows what characteristics the next boat "Kazan" will have or the one that will be built after it? They take so much time to build serial production out of the question". One cannot but agree with this argument. When laying the Kazan in 2009, it was said that the boat would be commissioned 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.

Still, Michael Kofman sees a threat from Russian submarines. “Of course,” he concludes, “given the reduction US Navy, especially in the European theater, as well as gaps in the construction of NATO allies modern forces and funds, even such a small submarine fleet can be problematic as it is difficult to track and contain. So military leaders are right to express concern in today's confrontation and unstable relationship with Russia."

DON'T MINUTE AND DON'T EXAGGER

The same approach, that is, not downplaying, but not exaggerating the capabilities of the modern Russian fleet, primarily the submarine, is also followed by retired US Navy captain Thomas Fedyshin. He is a professional navy sailor - served on various ships in the US Navy, including command of the guided missile destroyer William V. Pratt (DDG 44) and guided missile cruiser Normandy (CG 60), was a naval attache in Russia - and is now a naval expert. , Director of the Europe-Russia Study Group at the US Naval War College, which trains senior officers in the United States Navy. In an article under the eloquent headline “Putin’s Navy is more than Potemkin villages,” published by Proceedings magazine this May, Fedyshin writes: “Western experts tend to jump to conclusions about the weakness of the Russian Navy when they claim that the Russians are only bluffing and letting dust in your eyes. Although much is being done for show, the Russian navy is still dangerous.” In support of this thesis, he gives several examples. So, since 2009, the wear of Russian sailors has noticeably increased. According to him, although the TASS news agency is probably exaggerating when it reports that 70 warships of the Navy are constantly on combat duty in the oceans, one cannot but note a dramatic increase in the time spent by Russian sailors on campaigns. “There is little talk about this, but there are no more conscripts on the new Russian ships and those that perform the most important tasks,” the author of the publication emphasizes. “Thus, the level of training of sailors is growing, 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 held the largest joint exercise in their history in the Sea of ​​Japan, as well as in the Mediterranean Sea.

Thomas Fedyshin pays special attention to the role of the Russian Navy in the Syrian crisis: “Unexpected launches of sea-based cruise missiles from the Caspian Sea followed in October and from the Mediterranean Sea in October. Russian missiles flew over 1,500 km and hit the terrorist forces.”

And this is what the author concludes: “Eventually, 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 naval strategy, ongoing operations and the state of shipbuilding in the country, we come to the conclusion that the Russian fleet has returned the status of one of the leading in the world. Its current condition is better than at any time since the end of the Cold War. Judged by classical principles of capability 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 high seas and oceans, it is unlikely that it will conduct serious demonstrations of force or any offensive operations away from its native shores.

WEAPON SELECTION

Let's sum up some of the discussion about state of the art 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, neither in the number of ships, nor in the type order 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 areas, 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 here there is confusion and vacillation. For example, in the media, one can often find statements by high-ranking military and shipbuilding industry figures about preparations for the construction of nuclear destroyers of cruising displacement and nuclear aircraft carriers. In addition to huge costs and unmeasured deadlines, this will not result in anything.

For twenty years of actual downtime in the shipbuilding industry, personnel, many key skills and technologies have been lost. Meanwhile, the fleet urgently needs to be updated. Suffice it to say that the largest and most powerful Russian Northern Fleet from surface ships received only heavy nuclear weapons in a quarter of a century. 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 arrival of the Grachonok anti-sabotage boat of project 21980 with a displacement of 140 tons is expected.

Russian industry is already capable of serial construction of minesweepers and small missile ships. The latter proved their high efficiency in the Syrian operation. They not only carry out missile strikes against terrorists, but also protect Russian facilities on the territory of the SAR from the sea. The frigates of project 11356R/M also turned out to be successful and balanced. Their construction is known to be constrained by sanctions on the supply of gas turbine engines. But sooner or later this problem will be solved. It is required to bring to mind 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 the surface military shipbuilding of Russia. These multi-purpose ships are capable of solving all the tasks facing the Russian Navy in the near and far zones.

The bet 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 go far for examples. Officially announced that the timing of the transfer of the Navy after the modernization of heavy nuclear cruiser"Admiral Nakhimov" shifted from 2018 two years to the right. Recall that work on it started in the spring of 2014, but the cleaning of old structures has not yet been completed. Obviously, it will not be possible to meet the re-equipment of the ship by 2020. We'll 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 RTOs - their bill would go to dozens.

As Lenta.ru recently reported, the defense industry and the Russian Navy are considering the possibility of equipping all new-generation rank 1-2 warships with nuclear power plants. Such a 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 a source told the agency, “ we are talking on the creation of a line of unified installations for surface ships with a displacement of 4000 tons (frigate) to 80 thousand tons or more (aircraft carrier), with a capacity of, conditionally, from 40 to 200 megawatts. Taking into account the fact that the needs of the Navy in the next twenty years in ships of ranks 1-2 can be estimated at about 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 at present there are no 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, and we are forced to seek foreign help, scaring our neighbors that without their help we can 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 a cheerful company of boats and Greenpeace ships and will not be allowed into most ports of the world? Therefore, there is no one to demonstrate the flag. With the help of nuclear monsters, one can only frighten foreign inhabitants and shake money out of them for military spending by the United States, NATO and others like them. And 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 era of the Cold War and the present time convincingly proves that we can only "get" countries hostile to us submarines. Therefore, the construction of multi-purpose nuclear submarines should not drag on for decades, but become strictly rhythmic. Ashes are really excellent boats (for more details, see National Defense magazine 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 multi-purpose nuclear submarine, which received the code "Husky". Her appearance is still being formed, but it is known that she will become further development The nuclear submarine of project 885 will be armed with Zircon hypersonic missiles, the tests of which have already begun. It is, of course, difficult to judge the future ship from computer drawings of this submarine that have appeared on the Internet, all the more so since this “image” itself may not correspond to reality or will change over time. And yet, it is possible to form a certain idea about the future nuclear submarine. The ideally streamlined spindle-shaped hull of the Husky strongly resembles the Project 1710 experimental submarine-laboratory SS-530, which was once created for research in the field of hydrodynamics and acoustics of promising submarines. The branded Malachite limousine form of retractable devices fencing also contributes to an exceptionally “clean” silent flow around. The entire fore end is occupied by the radome of a conformal large-sized GAS antenna. Behind him are the covers of twenty-two vertical launchers for firing rockets and torpedoes. At the same time, each launcher can accommodate several units of torpedo or rocket weapons. They can also be used to accommodate uninhabited underwater vehicles and combat swimmer transporters. The propulsion of the boat, again, to reduce noise, is in an annular nozzle of the Pump Jet type. Tail rudders - cruciform. One can only guess about the Husky nuclear power plant and electronic equipment. But, undoubtedly, this nuclear submarine will be a highly automated ship - a further development of high-speed submarines of project 705, which had the designation "Alfa" in the West.

At the end of this month, the laying of the Perm nuclear submarine is expected - the sixth boat of the Yasen family, and a year later another one, which completes the series. Then the construction of Husky-type boats will begin.

Submarines with nuclear installations in our country and abroad are expensive, even very expensive. Part of the tasks they perform can be taken over by diesel-electric submarines or NAPLs. The former include Project 06363 submarines, six of which are intended for the Black Sea Fleet and three of which have already arrived at their home base - Novorossiysk. Six more of these boats will be built according to a slightly modified project for Pacific Fleet to "cool down" anti-Russian passions in Japan.

And in 2018, at the Admiralty Shipyards, it is planned to lay the foundation for the Kalina-type nuclear submarine - a fifth-generation non-nuclear boat with an auxiliary air-independent (anaerobic) power plant (VNEU), which will allow the submarine not to surface for several weeks. This will be a qualitative leap in the development of Russian submarine forces.

As we know, project 06363 "halibuts" can launch missile attacks on the enemy. But they can stay under water for only a few days. That is, these submarines are forced to surface to recharge the batteries and thereby unmask themselves. Even the use of a device for operating the engine under water (snorkel) does not guarantee stealth. 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 the Kalina-type nuclear submarines and their modifications should become the most massive ships of the Russian fleet, maybe not as numerous as the Project 613 diesel-electric submarines (215 units) in Soviet times, but about 50-60 units can be spoken. And then the “wolf packs” of the Russian Navy, consisting of “viburnum”, “halibut”, “ash” and “husky”, will be able to exert tight pressure on the coasts of America, European NATO states and their partners in other regions of the world. This is necessary in order to drive away Arleigh Burke-class destroyers with SM-3 anti-missiles and Tomahawk cruise missiles from the seas washing Russia. They will be forced to leave to ensure the anti-submarine defense of the United States