Despite some growth in military shipbuilding, which emerged after 2015, Russia has not yet reached the level of 2007, when the combat capabilities of the Russian Navy were 65% of those of the United States. According to the naval portal Mil.Press FLOT, this figure was only 47% over the past year. This is more than in 2016 and 2015. (45 and 44% respectively), but still the statistics leave much to be desired.
This indicator does not answer the question of who will win the war, since with the advent of nuclear weapons, everything has become much more complicated. However, the numbers make it possible to compare the fleets of the two superpowers and the dynamics of growth.
In 2017, Russian sailors received only two large warships - the Admiral Makarov frigate of project 11356 and the Perfect corvette.
Corvette "Perfect". Photo: mil.ru
In theory, the Project 22350 frigate "Admiral Gorshkov" of the Fleet of the Soviet Union, which is undergoing state tests, is on its way. But experts do not undertake to predict when the ship will be handed over to the Russian Navy. Deadlines have been pushed back too often.
With the ship of the same series "Admiral Golovko" the problem is even more serious. The frigate never received the engines that were previously supplied by the Ukrainian Zorya-Mashproekt.
A similar situation has developed with three frigates of project 11356. Alternative production of turbines in Rybinsk has not yet been established. And the ships will be commissioned at best in 2020-2021. The fate of the large landing ship Ivan Gren is also unclear - it was also planned to be transferred to the fleet last year, but this did not happen.
Landing ship "Ivan Gren". Photo: mil.ru
The nuclear missile carriers "Ryazan" and "Tula" who returned from the repair docks somewhat corrected the general situation. But these good submarines of the 1980s. cannot duplicate the new Borei submarines, which should form the basis of the strategic fleet.
At the same time, American sailors received a new aircraft carrier, the Gerald Ford, two missile destroyers the Arleigh Burke class, two Virginia-class utility submarines, and three LCS-class littoral ships. In addition, the second stealth destroyer of the Zamwalt class, the Michael Monsour, is being tested, although the date of its transfer to the US Navy is still unknown.
The destroyer Arleigh Burke. Photo: wikipedia.org
But definitely this year the Americans will receive three Arleigh Burke destroyers, two Virginia-class submarines, a San Antonio-class landing ship and three LCS.
Russia could significantly improve the situation with the very Mistrals, which, due to sanctions, never got to the Russian Navy. Now ships will either have to be purchased, for example, from China, or built from scratch, which is very difficult.
Coastal ship LCS 2. Photo: GLOBAL LOOK press/Deven Leigh Ellis
Nevertheless, the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation is slowly but surely updating the fleet. For the time being, it was decided to abandon the construction of a new aircraft carrier for financial reasons. And all the forces and means are now thrown into new submarines and frigates, which must be completed at any cost. In addition, do not forget about the modernization of the heavy nuclear cruisers "Peter the Great" and "Admiral Nakhimov", which are planned to be equipped with the most modern weapons.
The American aircraft carrier "Harry Truman" enters the Mediterranean Sea, and with it another dozen and a half formidable warships. In other words, the US is getting a new, even more powerful tool for delivering strikes against Syria. What could – at least in theory – be countered by Russia and its Navy? The intensity of passions around Trump's second missile attack on Syria has practically subsided, the tension subsided, and with a sober look, two indisputable facts became clearly visible: 1) the missile strike was a shot in the air to remind the world that the West, led by the United States, is strong , one, and that he has everything under control; 2) The United States and other NATO countries categorically do not want (are afraid) of a direct military clash with Russia. It would seem that you can calm down and move on with your life. But the geopolitical adversary is clearly testing our strength, groping for the boundaries of what is permitted. And no one can guarantee that in a week, a month or a year, in Syria or somewhere else, the aggressor will not attack again, but with much more serious consequences. In this regard, in particular, it would be interesting to understand what role could be played in the next crisis situation, if it happens in the very near future, warships The Russian Navy in the Syrian theater of operations (TVD). Enemy Vanguard In the immediate vicinity of the coast of Syria, the US Navy destroyer Donald Cook is currently located, permanently based in Rota - on the Atlantic coast of Spain near Gibraltar (did not take part in the April 14 attack). Somewhere nearby (most likely east of the Peloponnese) at the Tomahawk launch range (1600 km), the Virginia-class John Warner multi-purpose nuclear submarine patrols (April 14, it fired six missiles). Data on other American nuclear submarines in the theater are not available. The cruiser Monterey, the destroyers Laboon and Higgins are deployed in the area of responsibility of the US 5th Fleet. April 14 "Monterey" and "Laboon" struck 37 "Tomahawks" from the Red Sea, "Higgins" fired 23 missiles from the Persian Gulf. According to available data, there are no other US Navy warships in the 5th Fleet zone (with the exception of the landing group led by the Iwo Jima UDC, which is of no interest in relation to the Syrian crisis). Reserve In addition to Cook, three more destroyers are based in Rota. Carney was at the base on April 4, Ross arrived at Clyde Naval Base (Faslane, Scotland) on the 16th to participate in international naval exercises, Porter on the 18th went on a visit to Helsinki. The “loss” of two combat units was partly compensated by the Winston Churchill of the same type, which arrived in Rota on April 16 (according to some sources, the ship carries out independent deployment, according to others, it is part of the Truman AUG). Having received the appropriate order, "Carney" and "Churchill" can reach Syria in four days. Allies Britain and France can provide purely symbolic support to American allies. The beauty and pride of the Royal Navy - the newest aircraft carrier Queen Elizabeth - will be put into operation only in 2020. Except for the problematic Darings (which, moreover, simply have nothing to shoot along the coast), there remain Astyut and Trafalgar-class nuclear submarines , in the ammunition of which there is a certain number of "Tomahawks". However, the British boats did not participate in the attack on April 14, which suggests their absence in the theater. The French aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle will be out of repair in four months, so the French sent frigates to the coast of Syria - three multi-purpose, one air defense and one anti-aircraft defense, of which only the Languedoc fired, firing only three MdCN missiles (SCALP Naval). The Germans who refused to fight sent the Hessen frigate to the United States (for moral support?), Which crosses the ocean as part of the Truman AUG. main forces On April 11, the AUG led by the aircraft carrier Harry Truman left Norfolk (a naval base on the East Coast of the United States). The cruiser Normandy and four destroyers (Arleigh Burke, Bulkley, Forest Sherman and Farragut) are guarding the Truman, two more Burkes (Jason Dunham and Sullivans) are to join to AUG later. The presence in the group of the Premier League is not advertised, but it certainly takes place. On Wednesday, the carrier strike group Harry Truman entered the operational zone of the US 6th Fleet, the western border of which, at the latitude of Norfolk and Gibraltar, runs approximately in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean. Presumably on April 22-24, the AUG will proceed through the Strait of Gibraltar to the Mediterranean Sea and arrive at the Syrian shores towards the end of the month. As a result, taking into account the vanguard and the reserve, the American armada in the waters around Syria will consist of an aircraft carrier, two cruisers, 11 destroyers and at least two nuclear submarines. 15 surface and submarine escort ships can make one massive missile attack or several less massive attacks. Theoretically, a Ticonderoga-class cruiser can take on board 122, and an Arleigh Burke-class destroyer 90/96 Tomahawks (to all UVP cells), but then the balance of their armament will be upset and combat stability will sharply decrease, which is absolutely unacceptable when the presence in the theater of operations of a serious aviation grouping and enemy submarine forces. A typical ammunition load of MK 41 vertical launchers (VLRs) installed on the Burks consists of 48 Standard missiles, 16 Asrok missiles and 32 Tomahawk missiles (the number of missiles is indirectly confirmed by the number of missiles fired from two destroyers at the Syrian air base a year ago). Assuming that the cruisers carry the same number of Tomahawks, and adding the UVP of the Virginia-type nuclear submarine (12 each), we get 440 missiles in one salvo. And such a number is a big problem even for the most advanced air defense system in the world. In addition, carrier-based aircraft can also be used in the next "retaliation strike". Despite the lack of accurate data on the presence of JASSM-ER long-range cruise missiles (about 1000 km) in the ammunition of the Nimitz-type aircraft carriers and in the "working" ammunition of the F / A-18E / F, this possibility should be borne in mind. In this case, three Truman strike squadrons (the fourth one provides air cover for the AUG) with a total of 36 Super Hornets can fire at least 72, maximum 144 missiles in one sortie against any target in Syria, being outside the Syrian air defense coverage area. Russian Navy: "passive" Unfortunately, the geopolitical crisis has found the Russian Navy in a situation where two of its most powerful surface ships cannot be used to perform combat missions in distant waters. "Admiral Kuznetsov" de facto went into medium repair with modernization back in October last year, and "Peter the Great", apparently, has already exhausted its operational resource (does not go to sea for about 7 months) and also needs to be repaired. In 2016, our sluggish shipbuilding industry created a real miracle, restoring the technical readiness of both cruisers and providing not only a brilliant demonstration, but also the use of their military force during the Syrian campaign, but this time miracles are not to be expected. That is why in the future we should have two permanent operational squadrons capable of arriving in any "hot spot" of the World Ocean within one or two weeks. A certain consolation is the fact that in the Syrian theater of operations, Russia has its own “unsinkable aircraft carrier” - the Khmeimim airbase, located just 2.5 kilometers from the Mediterranean coast. In connection with the approach of the American armada, it makes sense to relocate all MiG-29K (UB) that are in a state of airworthiness there (out of 23 vehicles in the 100th separate shipborne fighter aviation regiment based in Severomorsk-3). A separate sore subject is the Moskva guards missile cruiser, which for many years played the role of a “rapid reaction cruiser” in the Mediterranean direction. At the end of 2012, the ship already participated in the confrontation off the coast of Syria with the AUG, led by Dwight Eisenhower. In relation to Russia, the United States did not behave as aggressively then as it does now, and the confrontation ended quite happily (which in no way detracts from the courage shown by our military sailors, who, in fact, found themselves face to face with the superior forces of a potential enemy, whose intentions they knew nothing). If Moskva were on the move now, it would take her only three days to cover Tartus, Khmeimim and all of Syria. In this context, two years and three months, during which the warship vital to Russia is in a non-combat-ready state, can be equated to a crime against the state. Russian Navy: asset Despite the fact that the forces of the Russian Navy and the US Navy are incommensurable, we have someone to send to the Syrian theater. At best, in order to cool hotheads, at worst, to die as heroes at the end of world history. First of all, about those who are already in place (and can somehow resist American aggression). These are diesel-electric submarines. Black Sea Fleet(never been in the Black Sea) "Veliky Novgorod" and "Kolpino" and TFR (frigates) of the Black Sea Fleet "Admiral Grigorovich" and "Admiral Essen". Both those and others are carriers of anti-ship missiles (ASM) 3M54 of the Caliber complex with supersonic speed in the final section of the flight. There is no one else to send from Sevastopol - someone has just returned from the BS, someone is not on the move, someone will be completely useless in the SPM (small missile ships and missile boats of the near sea zone, etc.). Article 12 of the Montreux Convention (only for repairs) prevents four new boats from passing through the straits - by and large, it all depends on Erdogan's goodwill, but he is unlikely to want to quarrel with NATO. It can be said that on April 14, the ships of the task force of the Russian Navy in the Mediterranean completed their task, since only nine missiles out of 69 (13%) were fired from their area of responsibility by enemy ships. The Americans preferred to shoot "from around the corner" - from where ours were not. In the North, he is completing a combat training course (passing course assignments) after dock repairs, the Marshal Ustinov missile cruiser of the same type as Moscow - one of our trump cards ("aircraft carrier killer" with the most powerful anti-ship complex "Vulcan"). On the move and, apparently, two BODs are also combat-ready - "Severomorsk" and "Vice-Admiral Kulakov". These three combat units would have made an excellent naval strike group (KUG), which, if it had left Severomorsk at the same time as the Truman AUG, would have arrived at the theater before it. The Baltic Fleet, which has already sent Yaroslav the Wise to the Mediterranean Sea, could strengthen the operational connection with a couple of corvettes. Despite the fact that these ships are armed with modest subsonic anti-ship missiles of the Uran complex (an analogue of the Harpoon), in the tracking mode at a direct radar line-of-sight range, both the Uran, the air defense system, and the 100-mm gun mount will be useful. It is unfortunate that the terrible melee weapon - the destroyer "Persistent" with four 130-mm automatic guns and supersonic anti-ship missiles of the "Moskit" complex will be out of repair only in the fall. Finally, the new Admiral Makarov TFR is still in the Baltic, handed over to the Navy at the very end of last year. In turn, not as soon as we would like (up to 20 days), with Far East the KUG can be pulled up as part of another missile cruiser ("Varyag"), and two BODs (to choose from: "Admiral Vinogradov", "Admiral Panteleev", "Admiral Tributs"). All ships are on the move and, judging by the high activity in the combat training ranges in March, they are fully combat-ready. Depending on the circumstances, the Pacific KUG can operate in the Red Sea, and in the Persian Gulf, and in the eastern part of the NPM. Regarding submarine forces (in addition to two diesel-electric submarines in Tartus), one can only assume that they are in the Mediterranean Sea. Despite the criticality of the situation with the nuclear multi-purpose component, the Northern Fleet has several combat-ready boats, including the latest Severodvinsk, Gepard, Pskov, and Obninsk. Not so great confidence in relation to "Nizhny Novgorod", even less - "Panther". In addition, from the North it is possible (and even necessary) to send one of the three anti-aircraft cruisers - Oryol, Voronezh or Smolensk - to the NPM. As a result, about the same number of NK and submarines of the Russian Navy can theoretically be used against 16 warships of the US Navy. Even taking into account the much higher combat potential of the American grouping, the balance of power does not seem completely hopeless. This is due to two circumstances. Firstly, the anti-ship capabilities of the armada are most likely limited by the obsolete Harpoon anti-ship missiles, the massive use of which is hardly possible, and mass production new LRASM anti-ship missiles (inconspicuous, long-range, but again subsonic) are just beginning. Secondly, the tracking regime worked out in the years of the previous cold war, when Soviet ships relentlessly followed the enemy ships, ready, in fact, for maritime hand-to-hand combat using all available weapons, leaving the Americans no chance to get out of the battle unharmed. They remember it, they know it, and, most likely, will refrain from sudden movements. In conclusion, it makes sense to identify another real way in which the Navy can help the Motherland in a threatened period. Namely, to withdraw all missile submarines from permanent bases to the sea strategic purpose, which, no doubt, will be noticed by enemy reconnaissance. Empty moorings in Gadzhiyevo and Vilyuchinsk on satellite images should have a sobering effect on the instigators of the conflict. In general, let's hope that reason will prevail, and we, having passed the optional and unfortunate period of confrontation with our American colleagues, will sooner or later come to cooperation for the benefit of each other and all of humanity. Alexander Shishkin,
shipbuilding engineer
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 Marine Corps. 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 ranking of the strongest fleets in the world suggests that China has recently been rapidly implementing programs to create and update the Navy, which is currently being evaluated as a force capable of conducting operations far from its shores and resisting the United States,” says a military expert, head of the department Eurasian integration and development of the SCO Institute of the 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. Besides, Chinese aircraft carrier"Liaoning" (Soviet "Varyag") can hardly be called a full-fledged combat unit - based on a combination of factors, it can effectively perform tasks only in coastal areas. And for the British Navy, two aircraft carriers of the type queen elizabeth.
- Here, I would still put Russia in second place - in terms of combat and technical indicators, if possible 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. Also, let's look at the efficiency combat use forces and means, the ability to conduct combat operations in different conditions, as well as the availability of 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 aviation, tankers, as well as 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 great amount the conflicts in which the US 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 the National Guard - the current reserve of the US Armed Forces, which is also involved in foreign operations.
- In my opinion, in the ranking of the Navy, 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 the DPRK, 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 in quality they are third), 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)
I note that North and South Korea should be in the top ten in all types of armed forces. Of course, the DPRK has a rather specific fleet - "mosquito", however, it cannot be called weak.
The modern navy is designed to perform three main tasks: providing strategic deterrence in the form of 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(clearance of the Suez Canal or Chittagong Bay);
- protection of territorial waters (displacing the cruiser "Yorktown");
Search and rescue operations (rescue of the Alpha Foxtrot 586 crew or search for landing capsules spacecraft splashed down in the Indian Ocean)
Special operations (destruction of the USA-193 satellite in low Earth orbit or escort of tankers in the Persian Gulf during the Iran-Iraq war).
Based on the foregoing, it seems interesting to know how the two most powerful navies in the world, the US Navy and the US Navy, are coping with their tasks. Russian Federation. And this is by no means a ridiculous joke.
The Russian fleet is still the second largest military fleet, and, oddly enough, is still capable of performing assigned tasks 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 a predominantly maritime power, separated from the rest of the world by two deep "anti-tank ditches" filled with salt water. Hence the obvious desire to have a powerful fleet.
Secondly - they have been burning about this for a long time - the power of the modern US Navy is excessive. At one time, the "Mistress of the Seas" Great Britain was guided by the "Two power standard" - the numerical superiority of the British fleet over the next two fleets in strength. At present, the American fleet has a numerical superiority over all the fleets of the world combined!
But what does that matter in the age of nuclear weapons? A direct military conflict between developed powers inevitably threatens to develop into a global war with the destruction of the entire 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 fantasy has long picked up definitions for such a situation. As it stands, the US Navy does more damage to the United States than to its adversaries.
As for Russia, we are a primordially "land" power. There is nothing surprising in the fact that, despite its numerous exploits and loud words for the glory of the sailors, our Navy almost always remained in secondary roles. The outcome of the Patriotic War of 1812 or the Great patriotic war decided by no means on the open sea. As a result, limited funding programs Navy (nevertheless, this was enough to have the second largest fleet in the world).
“There are two types of ships - submarines and targets,” says sea wisdom. The underwater component is the basis of the fleet of any modern state. It is the submarines that have been entrusted with the honorary position of "gravediggers of Mankind" - an invisible and invulnerable warship is capable of incinerating all life on the entire continent. A missile squadron submarine cruisers strategic purpose is guaranteed to destroy life on planet Earth.
The Russian Navy has seven active SSBNs of projects 667BDR "Kalmar" and 667BDRM "Dolphin", as well as one new missile carrier of project 955 "Borey". Two more missile carriers are under repair. Two "Boreas" - under construction, in a high degree of readiness.
Submarine - sea thunderstorm
Steel eyes under the black cap
There are 14 such boats in the US Navy - the legendary Ohio-class strategic missile carriers. Dangerous adversary. Extremely secretive, reliable, with an ammunition load of 24 Trident II missiles.
And, nevertheless, ... 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 - guaranteed death for everyone.
But miracles don't happen. In terms of multi-purpose submarines, the Russian Navy is a complete loser: a total of 26 multi-purpose nuclear submarines and underwater carriers of cruise missiles against 58 nuclear submarines of the US Navy. On the side of the Americans, not only the number, but also quality: twelve boats - the latest fourth-generation nuclear submarines of the Virginia and Seawolf types, which are the best in the world in terms of their characteristics. 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 mines + 2 lock chambers for combat swimmers. We have no analogues of such technology.
Main caliber!
In fact, not everything is so hopeless - the Russian Navy has nuclear submarines special destination - the odious "Losharik" and its carrier - BS-64 "Podmoskovye". A new nuclear submarine of project 885 "Ash" is being tested.
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! "Dizelukha" - simple and cheap remedy for operations in coastal waters, in addition, due to a number of technical reasons (lack of powerful pumps in the reactor circuits, etc.) - it is much quieter than a nuclear submarine.
Conclusion: could be better. New Ashes, modernization of titanium Barracudas, new developments in the field of small diesel-electric submarines (Lada project). We look to the future with hope.
Let's move on to the sad - the surface component of the Russian Navy is simply a laughing stock against the backdrop of the US Navy. Or is it an illusion?
The Legend of Elusive Joe. The Russian Navy has one heavy aircraft-carrying cruiser "Admiral Kuznetsov". Aircraft carrier or aircraft carrier? In principle, the Soviet-Russian TAVKR differs from the classic aircraft carrier only in that it is weaker.
The Americans have ten aircraft carriers! All, as one, atomic. Each one is twice as large as our Kuznetsov. AND…
And ... the elusive Joe cannot be caught, because no one needs him. With whom are American aircraft carriers going to fight 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 surf the endless expanse of water and amuse American vanity - until the US national debt reaches 30 trillion. dollars and there will be no collapse of the United States economy.
But sooner or later, the Nimitz will approach the enemy shore and ... attack sunny Magadan? For purely continental Russia, of all US Navy only the Ohio strategic submarines are dangerous.
However, in any of the local conflicts, the nuclear supercarrier "Nimitz" is of little use. Which, however, is understandable - the power of the Nimitz carrier-based air wing is simply insignificant against the backdrop of thousands of combat aircraft and helicopters of the US Air Force, tearing Iraq, Libya and Yugoslavia to shreds.
And here are other worthy representatives of the class of aircraft carriers - 17 universal landing helicopter carriers / ships of the docks 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 (17,000 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, the Allies abandoned their tanks and equipment and evacuated in horror from the coast of France.
Landing operations using small forces are almost always doomed to failure. And the Americans know this better than we do - they prepared for a war with Iraq for six months, tormented the enemy from the air for two months, dropping 141,000 tons of explosives on him, and then an avalanche of a million soldiers and 7,000 armored vehicles poured across the Iraqi border from Saudi Arabia.
USS Essex (LHD-2) - Wasp-class amphibious assault ship
In view of the foregoing, the combat value of the Wasp and San Antonio landing troops is not too great - it is useless to use them against any serious countries. And to use 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 the Americans fight? Who delivers thousands of tanks and hundreds of thousands of soldiers to foreign shores? It's clear who the Sealift Command's fast transports are. In total, the Americans have 115 such vessels. Formally, they do not belong to the navy, but they always walk in a dense security ring of destroyers and frigates of the US Navy - otherwise one enemy torpedo will launch a division of the American army to the bottom.
Military Sealift Command fast transport squadron. Each is the size of an aircraft-carrying cruiser "Admiral Kuznetsov"
The Russian Navy, of course, does not have such ships - but it does Large landing ships (BDK) As many as 19 units! They are old, rusty, slow. But they do an excellent job of their functions - to demonstrate the flag and deliver a batch of equipment to Syria and military equipment in front of the entire indignant Western world. The BDK has neither normal air defense nor cruise missiles - nothing but 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!
Nobody is going to drive them into a real battle - where the 40,000-ton Wasp cannot cope, our BDK (displacement of 4,000 tons) has nothing to do.
The next important point is that the Russian Navy has only 15 surface ships of the far sea zone on the move: 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 missile cruiser Peter the Great and three project 1164 missile cruisers - Moskva, Varyag and Marshal Ustinov.
There are 84 such ships in the US Navy, including: 22 missile cruisers Ticonderoga and 62 Orly Burke-class destroyers.
American cruisers and destroyers carry from 90 to 122 UVP Mk.41 cells, each of which lurks winged Tomahawks, ASROC anti-submarine missile torpedoes or Standardd anti-aircraft missiles capable of hitting targets at ranges up to 240 km and destroying objects beyond the Earth atmosphere. United digital system Aegis weapon control, coupled with modern radar and versatile weapons, makes the Ticonderoga and Orly Burke the deadliest of all US Navy surface ships.
BOD "Admiral Panteleev" and USS Lassen (DDG-82)
15 against 84. The ratio, of course, is shameful. Despite the fact that the last peer of our large anti-submarine ships, the Spruence-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 super destroyers "Orly Burke" can only watch the actions of our ships powerlessly. In extreme cases, it is dangerous to maneuver and attack with swear words over the radio.
At one time, to neutralize the Yorktown super cruiser (Ticonderoga type), it turned out to be enough the small patrol ship Bezzavetny and its bold captain commander V. Bogdashin - the Soviet guard broke the American's port side, deformed the helipad, demolished the Harpoon missile launcher ” and prepared for the re-bulk. No repetition was required - Yorktown hastily left the inhospitable territorial waters of the Soviet Union.
By the way, about patrol boats and frigates.
The Russian Navy has 9 frigates, corvettes and patrol boats, 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 Oliver Hazard Perry-class frigates and three LCS-class coastal warships.
LCS, in every sense, is an innovative thing - a course of 45-50 knots, universal weapons, a spacious helipad, modern electronics. It is expected that this year the US Navy will replenish the fourth ship of this type. In total, the plans announced the construction of 12 marine supermachines.
As for the Perry frigates, they have been greatly weakened of late. In 2003, missile weapons were completely dismantled from them. Several ships of this type are decommissioned annually, and by the beginning of the next decade, all Perries should be sold to the Allies or scrapped.
Another important point is naval base aviation.
The aviation of the Russian Navy is armed with about fifty Il-38 and Tu-142 anti-submarine aircraft (let's be realistic - how many of them are in flight able ?)
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 the reserve and Coast Guard aviation.
The legendary P-3 Orions are in service, as well as their special reconnaissance modification EP-3 Aries. At present, the new P-8 Poseidon anti-submarine jet aircraft have begun to enter service.
P-3 Orion and P-8 Poseidon. Generational change
Long-range anti-submarine aircraft Tu-142, accompanied by "Phantoms"
Even in theory, the naval base aviation of the US Navy is the second superior to the patrol and anti-submarine aviation of the Russian Navy. And this is truly embarrassing. I'm not sure about the anti-submarine capabilities of the Orions and Poseidons (where did they look when 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 Il-38s, still capable of taking off, search for a week and cannot find rafts from a shipwreck or an ice floe with fishermen - no, guys, this is not possible.
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 military operations far from its native shores. On the other hand, Russia is not going and does not plan to fight on the other side of the world. All of our current 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 pack ice does not come close to the coast), hunting for pirate feluccas - the Russian Navy knows how to do everything (or almost everything) that the fleet should do in peacetime.
Russian fleet at international exercises
(on the bottom illustration - in the head of the second column there is a BOD pr. 1155)
This was announced researchers Center for Naval Analysis 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 Caliber missiles are approaching an American destroyer at supersonic speed. 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 in this strategy important role. 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 attack enemy infrastructure at long distances using conventional weapons, the authors say.
They also stress that Russia is the most technically advanced US opponent 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 Oniks 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. To expand the range of tasks, larger ships 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-to-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 of various types, similar in tasks and displacement. However, this approach gives defense complex the ability 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 Kalibr missiles, which can hit a significant part of important targets in Europe. But Special attention should be drawn to the class "Ash". Russia may build a small 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 concluded.