Any reason for scientific analysis missing here. The Russian Navy and the US Navy exist separately from each other, in different time periods. Just like the fleets of the First and Second World Wars.
Statistical methods do not work. With a multiple quantitative gap, consider average age ship composition does not make sense. As well as determining the% ratio of new and old ships. In reality, these % will be expressed as a different number of ships for each of the fleets. Too different to be taken seriously.
The phenomenon of "average temperature"
It is enough to exclude “obsolete equipment” (ships built before 2001) from the calculations, and the unexpected will turn out. Over the first 15 years of the new century, American shipyards handed over 36 destroyers to the fleet (including the experimental Zamwalt and the berk-shaped Finn - not yet officially accepted into the Navy, but already launched and tested).
No less serious results were shown by the General Dynamics Electric Boat shipyard. During the specified period of time, 12 multi-purpose nuclear submarines class "Virginia" and one nuclear submarine for special operations "Carter" (class "Sivulf").
Of the major players, two nuclear aircraft carrier, "Reagan" and "George Bush". Another (“Ford”), recognized as the largest warship in history, was launched in 2013, this fall it will join the Navy.
PCU (pre-commission unit - an object under completion) John Finn. It will take a couple more months for the PCU code to change to USS (United States Ship).
From other aircraft carriers, the following were built:
- a helicopter carrier with the unexpected name "America" (an air wing of 30 helicopters, "Harriers" and F-35s).
- two universal landing ships of the Wasp class (Iwo Jima and Makin Island, each twice as large as the Mistral);
- Expeditionary floating base-helicopter carrier "Puller" (78 thousand tons).
From the exotic - the naval radar base of the missile defense system, which received the designation SBX.
The next item is six high-speed coastal combat ships (LCS), duplicating the tasks of guards, minesweepers and submarine hunters.
From other large units: 11 landing ships of the San Antonio type and two sea terminals for over-the-horizon landing of armored vehicles: Glenn and Montford Point.
In total - a "brigade" of seventy ships of the oceanic zone with an average age of less than ten years. Here you have all the statistics.
Without taking into account the "obsolete" ships built in the period of the 1980-90s. The oldest operating ship remains the Nimitz (1975). However, age is not so terrible for aircraft carriers. Their main weapon is constantly evolving. Over the past 40 years, three generations of naval aviation have changed on the deck of the Nimitz (“Phantom” - F-14 - “superhornet”).
And again about the Russian threat
In reality, everything is somewhat different than on a beautiful trailer of the Russian fleet. The successes of domestic shipbuilders, as expected, turned out to be much more modest.
Over the past 15 years, the Russian fleet has received the Gepard multi-purpose nuclear submarine (project 971), the Severodvinsk multi-purpose nuclear submarine (project 885) and three submarine missile carriers strategic purpose Borey type.
Four diesel-electric boats pr. 636.3 (modernized "Varshavyanka"). Thirty years ago, such “black holes” posed a deadly threat, however, at the beginning of the 21st century, the balance of power has changed somewhat. The boats do not have enough anaerobic SU, without which they cannot survive in the conditions of modern PLO (they are forced to surface every 3-4 days instead of two to three weeks with their foreign counterparts).
Of the surface units - five frigates ("Gorshkov", "Kasatonov", "Grigorovich", "Essen", "Makarov"). Four of them have not yet been officially commissioned, but we can confidently speak of them as built ships. The main front of work was left behind; three frigates have already entered the stage of mooring trials and GSI.
Corvette, destroyer and frigate.
If you wish, you can add seven more corvettes, pr. 20380 and 11611, to this list. It makes no sense to talk about smaller units - MAK and MRK.
What is a corvette or small rocket ship?
On the night of October 7, 2015, a group of ships of the Caspian flotilla, consisting of the Dagestan missile ship and three project 21631 small missile ships, launched a group of 26 3M14 Caliber-NK missiles at Islamic State facilities in Syria.
The volley of small ships of the Caspian flotilla is equal to half the volley of the destroyer "Arleigh Burke" (96 silos). Further comments are superfluous.
Unlike ships of smaller classes, the destroyer is still capable of hitting ballistic missile warheads and shooting down satellites in low Earth orbits. Apart from large hydroacoustic stations, helicopters and other military equipment on board.
In this sense, the combat value of the "babies" is greatly exaggerated. Has anyone seriously decided to equate RTOs with destroyers? Well, statistics will endure everything.
They do not like to remember the technical factor at all. The harsh truth is that the Russian Navy, like other fleets of the world, in principle, lacks the equipment available to American sailors.
Naval anti-missile defense base, submarine rocket launchers carrying 150 Tomahawks in their ridges, a missile and artillery destroyer and a six-megawatt Aegis radar ...
At one time, trying to stay at the peak of progress, the USSR generated many fresh and unique counter-solutions (super-heavy anti-ship missiles, titanium submarines, the Legend space intelligence system). The modern Navy is forced to be content with only those of the available technologies, the implementation of which does not require large expenditures. The result is what you would expect.
The fleet is not only ships. This, to a large extent, is naval aviation.
The potential of naval aviation of the Russian Navy has undoubtedly increased with the start of deliveries carrier-based fighters MiG-29K (4 units) and coastal-based Su-30SM fighters (8 units for the aviation of the Black Sea Fleet).
On the other side of the scale are the five hundred F/E-18E and 18F Super Hornets placed on the decks of American aircraft carriers since the beginning of the new century.
Among other foreign innovations is the creation of the Triton patrol drone (the Global Hawk UAV modified for maritime tasks). A 15-ton vehicle with a 40-meter wing and an all-round radar capable of surveying up to 7 million square meters per day. kilometers of ocean surface. In addition to the radar with active phased array, the drone's toolkit includes electronic intelligence equipment and a set of optical sensors with a laser rangefinder for visual target recognition. recent history fleet.
Epilogue. "Elephant and pug"?
The favorite pastime of our “couch experts” is a deliberately meaningless comparison of the potentials of the Russian and US fleets. It makes no more sense than the mention of "diapers" and regular articles about the concern of the American command in connection with the "growing lag in the field of naval weapons from Russia and China." The accumulated potential is so great that American admirals may “not go up to the bridge” until the middle of the century.
Unlike them, it is contraindicated for us to relax. The above statistics clearly show how effectively the rearmament of the Russian Navy is proceeding. And how much remains to be done to reach, if not on an equal footing (which is impossible for economic or geopolitical reasons), then at an adequate level in comparison with the “probable adversary”. Moreover, immediately declaring such an armada as your enemy is unnecessarily reckless. It is better to do everything so that the US Navy remains an ally, or at least a neutral.
Otherwise, why rush into a battle that cannot be won?
"Bound in one chain": BOD "Admiral Panteleev" and the destroyer "Lassen". Refueling on the move at sea
However ... The quantitative and qualitative level of the Russian and US Navy is such that they are less likely to engage in battle with each other than the ships of the period of the First and Second World Wars.
Of the positive aspects, it is worth recognizing that the current situation is not new and has its own logical explanation of a geographical nature. The history of the Anglo-Saxons is inextricably linked with the sea. We are completely different.
Hand on heart - what serious military consequences did Tsushima have? Did the Japanese reach Moscow? No, that's the whole answer. Just like the loss of part of Sevastopol during the Crimean War and its re-occupation during the Second World War. All these were completely insignificant, minor troubles for a huge land power.
The 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" - numerical superiority british navy over the next two fleets. 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. AT current form The US Navy does more damage to the United States itself 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 negligible 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 from the French coast in horror.
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.
The US Navy has 84 such ships, including: 22 Ticonderoga missile cruisers 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. Aegis' unified digital weapons control system, coupled with modern radars 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 Spruance-class destroyer, was decommissioned by the Americans back in 2006.
But do not forget that the likelihood of a direct military conflict between the US Navy and the Russian Navy is vanishingly small - no one wants to die in a thermonuclear hell. Consequently, the 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 supercruiser (Ticonderoga type), it turned out that the small patrol ship Bezzavetny and its bold captain commander V. Bogdashin turned out to be enough - the Soviet patrol ship broke through the American's left side, deformed the helipad, demolished the Harpoon missile launcher ” and prepared for the re-bulk. Repetition was not required - "Yorktown" hastily left the inhospitable territorial waters 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)
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 assessed 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 Queen Elizabeth type are still being built.
- 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. 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, 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 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 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)
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.
The photo shows the US Navy Carrier Strike Group, on this moment it is the most effective deterrent in the world, after nuclear weapons. Once, while still the US Secretary of Defense, Leon Edward Panetta, said: "Any fifth grader knows that the US AUG cannot be destroyed by any of the existing powers of the world"
Wait! But what about Russia! Personally, I have always and everywhere been told that the Russian army can deal with the US Navy - somehow, but it can. More advanced in this matter stated: well, with the whole fleet, maybe not, it’s even possible that we won’t overcome an aircraft carrier formation, but we can definitely send one AUG to the bottom. Well, very few still agreed with the Americans in their bravado.
By the way, a photo of a part of an aircraft carrier formation:
Let's look into this issue (it's interesting, really).
I must say right away that I will not overload the post with numbers and transfers, it will be possible to get all the data and performance characteristics from different sources. I won't go into detail either. Those. I count on some erudition of visitors in this matter, the rest, if something is not clear in the names or terms, can freely draw definitions through a search engine.
Begin:
A typical US AUG is a grouping consisting of:
The flagship aircraft-carrying ship of the Nimitz-type (or Enterprise)-type nuclear power plant with a carrier-based aviation regiment (60-80 aircraft) based on it. As usual, an aircraft carrier, as well as a grouping carrier-based aviation regiment, are separate military units of naval aviation and are under the command of naval aviation officers with the rank of captain of the first rank (U.S. Naval aviation Captain).
The air defense division of the grouping is 1-2 KR URO of the Ticonderoga type. To the base armament complex of the battalion missile cruisers includes PU SAM "Standart" (SM-2, SM-3), and KR "Tomahawk" sea-based. All missile cruisers of the "Ticonderoga" type are equipped with a naval weapon control and missile firing system "Aegis" (AEGIS). Each of the cruisers of the division is under the command of a US Navy officer with the rank of captain of the first rank (U.S. Navy Captain).
PLO division of the group - 3-4 EM URO of the Arleigh Burke type with depth charges and torpedoes to combat submarines, as well as (part of the ships) with Tomahawk missile launchers on board. The PLO division commander is a Navy officer with the rank of captain of the first rank (U.S. Navy Captain), while each of the destroyers of the division is under the command of a US Navy officer with the rank of captain of the second rank (U.S. Navy Сommander).
Division of multi-purpose submarines - 1-2 submarines of the Los Angeles type with torpedo armament and Tomahawk cruise missiles (launched through TA boats) on board with the tasks of both anti-aircraft grouping and strikes against coastal (surface) targets.
Supply Vessel Division - 1-2 Supply transports, ammunition transports, tankers, other auxiliary ships
SDA of the Navy - up to 60 aircraft of the US Navy aviation, combined into strike AE, AE AWACS, AE PLO, AE VTS, etc. The SAE of the Navy is a separate military unit US Navy Aviation. The Naval Aviation Administration, as well as the AVMA, is under the command of a Navy aviation officer in the rank of captain of the first rank or a USMC aviation officer in the rank of colonel (USMC Сolonel).
For reference:
So what can we oppose to such an impressive power. Unfortunately, Russia does not have the resources to compete with the United States on an equal footing in the number of ships. In terms of aircraft carriers, the advantage of the United States is overwhelming, now the American has 10 aircraft carriers, we have one aircraft-carrying cruiser, Admiral Kuznetsov, which can be qualified as a light aircraft carrier, but, unfortunately, actually without aircraft. There are ten Su-33s in service out of the planned twenty-five, which they already want to replace with the MiG-29K. In 2013, two MiGs were added to the existing dryers. As for escort ships, the situation is also not the best.
Many will now say, why are there aircraft carriers, Russia has a lot of other things to destroy the AUG. I agree that in a situation of total superiority in ships, an asymmetric response is needed. So what is he?
The Russian armed forces see it in missile weapons, namely in anti-ship missiles. Those. in the effective delivery of a conventional or nuclear charge directly to the AUG ships.
First, I propose to familiarize yourself with the RCC carriers:
1. Project 1164 missile cruiser:
2. Submarine project 949A "Antey"
3. Project 1144 heavy missile cruiser
4. Heavy aircraft-carrying cruiser project 1143.5
Please note that on the deck of the Kuznetsov there are all the aircraft that are available, although according to the plan it should look no less full than the American aircraft carriers, although it is smaller - let's compare:
There are also small missile ships, aviation and coastal missile systems.
Since the US AUG has a serious missile defense and air defense system, and naturally a powerful aviation fist, the main characteristics for combating it and defeating it are the detection distance and a possible attack.
In order to hit the composition of the AUG: aviation, ships or submarines must ensure the timely detection of an aircraft carrier group, classify it, get close to the missile strike distance, while maintaining combat capability, and launch missiles that, having overcome air defense and electronic warfare, must destroy the ships in the composition AUG.
Consider the option of attacking the AUG by surface ships of the Russian Navy in the oceans:
Unfortunately, the capabilities of Russian ships in terms of detection are actually limited by the limits of the radio horizon; the helicopters on board the ships are of little use for solving this problem due to the small number of these machines and the small radius of action. They can be effectively used only in the interests of issuing target designation of missile weapons, but before that, you still need to detect the enemy.
Of course, when missile cruisers were created, i.e. under the Soviet navy, their activities were to be carried out with the support of the naval intelligence system in the ocean theater. It relied on a developed system of radio-technical intelligence, which was based on ground centers located not only on the territory of the USSR, but also in other states. There was also effective space-based maritime reconnaissance, which made it possible to detect and track the ship formations of a potential enemy, and to issue target designation to missile weapons practically throughout the entire territory of the World Ocean. Russia does not have all this at the current time. In 2006, they began to reanimate the system, but the end is still very, very far away.
Therefore, the AUG will see our ships long before it itself is detected. The grouping constantly provides air control to a depth of 800 km with the help of Grumman_E-2_Hawkeye AWACS aircraft, we will be attacked by 48 aircraft, of which 25 will carry the HARPUN anti-aircraft missile system, and almost 8 pieces of Boeing_EA-18_Growler will provide electronic warfare.
I recently came across an article about the naval forces of Russia and the United States, I 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, it is pointless to compare the US and Russian fleets by quantitative factors, 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 left for them to defend - convoy escort 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 cruiser, 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 for the Baltic, allows you to create a dense anti-submarine curtain, and even there it is not relevant - who in their right mind would trample on a submarine in the Marquis's 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, the 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, ships are almost non-automated, crews are bloated, 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 UKKS (Universal Shipborne Firing System ) for eight seats, which can carry up to 32 missiles of various types in various combinations, the Sigma CICS is built on a network principle, provides unified control of all ship assets, and simultaneous work on air, sea, and underwater targets, several CICS form a common network connections. 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 in terms of 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 frigate of project 11356, 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.
Relatively strong component - missile boats, since there was an excellent Soviet backlog in anti-ship missiles, so powerful that gray-haired designers of retirement age, almost without 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 makes no sense 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 has managed to degrade, skilled workers have been destroyed, domestic heavy shipbuilding is no longer a class, subcontractors have been liquidated as a category, any competent designers and rare engineers trained by partly surviving professors of the Soviet school are dumped to the west as soon as possible, 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 core of the literate 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 an unambiguous 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 classes in peacetime, and to withdraw from the Navy all useless junk, adapted only to divert budgetary funds.
In contact with