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 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. 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 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.
Alexander MOZGOVOI
TERRIBLE "HALIBUTS"
The passage of "Stary Oskol" was accompanied by the accompaniment of Western means mass media that frightened the world with the growing Russian underwater threat. However, this was also the case during the voyages of the first two halibuts. Just shift some of the emphasis. During the passage of the Novorossiysk diesel-electric submarine - the lead in the series - a stir in the foreign media was caused by the entry of a boat to replenish supplies and crew rest in the Spanish port of Ceuta on the African coast (for more details, see the National Defense magazine No. 10/2015). British publications were especially zealous. They saw in the actions of Madrid a provocation directed against Gibraltar, a British enclave on the Iberian Peninsula. Like, it is outrageous that a NATO country provides its services to a Russian warship, which is subject to Western sanctions, like a pack of wolves with red flags. And then such impermissible liberalism!
The campaign of "Rostov-on-Don" (for details see the magazine "National Defense" No. 1/2016) caused amazement and shock in the West after this boat struck the Caliber-PL complex with 3M-14 cruise missiles on December 8 last year a powerful strike from under the water on the targets of the Islamic State terrorist organization banned in Russia. In the United States and other NATO countries, not without reason, they considered that this was not only an attack on the objects of a criminal gang, but also a warning to the North Atlantic bloc that jokes are bad with Russia, since 3M-14 missiles can be equipped not only with conventional, but also with nuclear warheads. parts.
Shortly before the start of the transition to the Black Sea and Stary Oskol carried out rocket firing. On May 6, the boat successfully hit an object at the Chizh training ground in the Arkhangelsk region. A day earlier, B-262 missiles 3M-54 with high precision hit a naval target.
It should be noted here that in order to save motor resources, Russian diesel-electric submarines of project 06363, after deep-sea and firing tests, make transitions from Barents Sea to Chernoye at economic speed. Most of the way is overcome in the surface position, and often in general in tow. So this time the "Stary Oskol" was accompanied by the tugboat "Altai".
And suddenly a storm arose. But not at sea, but in Western media primarily British. "Royal Navy frigate intercepts Russian submarine off English Channel" was the headline of an article in London's The Telegraph on 8 June. This topic was picked up by other editions of the United Kingdom, as well as some European and American media. The tabloid The Sun, popular in the British Isles, even called the crew of the frigate Kent "English heroes". The commander of this HM ship, Commander Daniel Thomas modestly noted that "the Russian submarine was discovered thanks to a joint effort with NATO allies." Indeed, as soon as the B-262 entered the North Sea, the Dutch frigate Tromp "took" it for escort. And the "interceptor" Kent has already got the second batch. Meanwhile, British Defense Secretary Michael Fallon said: "This means that the Royal Navy remains vigilant in international and territorial waters to ensure the safety of the UK and protect us from a potential threat." In fact, the Stary Oskol did not need to make its way to the English Channel to create a threat to the security of the United Kingdom. The boat could strike with "calibers" on the shores of Foggy Albion, while still in the Barents Sea. And the "English heroes", of course, would not have saved the country. That is, "intercepting" a Russian submarine on the way to the English Channel in the event of hostilities is a useless exercise and even, let's not be afraid of this word, archaic, from somewhere in the 60-80s of the last century.
This story had another aspect. The “interception” took place shortly before Brexit, a referendum on whether or not Britain should leave the European Union. As UK Foreign Secretary Philip Hamond (in Theresa May's office he moved to the chair of the Chancellor of the Exchequer) made it clear: “To be honest, the only country that would like us to leave the EU is Russia. And that says a lot." That is, the insidious Moscow sent a submarine in order to put pressure on the island inhabitants. And success has been achieved! The subjects of Elizabeth II by a majority vote said "Good bye!" European Union.
FOURTH BATTLE FOR THE ATLANTIC
But jokes aside, the picture that emerges, according to a number of Western naval experts, is bleak. In the June issue of this year, Proceedings magazine, which is published by the US Naval Institute, published an article by Vice Adm. analysis by Dr. Eleric Fritz. Their publication, which caused a noticeable response not only in special, but also in popular media, is called very eloquently - "The Fourth Battle of the Atlantic."
It is clear what the authors mean by this. The first battle means a tough confrontation between German submarines and the Entente Navy and the United States, which ended in victory for the latter. Under the second, of course, is the most difficult struggle of the anti-submarine forces of Great Britain and the United States against fascist submarines. In both cases, the battles for the Atlantic were accompanied by huge losses in Allied merchant tonnage. Twice England was nearly brought to her knees. The anti-submarine war required the concentration of large financial and material resources on both sides of the Atlantic. And only the "connection" of the United States allowed London to survive and win.
The third battle, as you might guess, means years cold war. The most powerful US and NATO fleets Soviet Union opposed hundreds of nuclear and diesel-electric submarines. And although this battle did not turn into a real war, the United States and its NATO allies, according to the authors of Proceedings, prevailed due to their high-class anti-submarine capabilities. The thesis is highly controversial, since such third-generation nuclear submarines as the Soviet nuclear-powered ships of projects 941, 667BDRM, 949, 945, 671RTM and 971, as well as diesel-electric submarines of project 877 were not inferior, but surpassed in a number of characteristics foreign analogues. And the anti-submarine weapons of the North Atlantic Alliance cannot be called amazing. The Soviet Union lost the third battle for the Atlantic not because of the technical imperfection of Soviet submarines, but because of the collapse of the country that built them. Here, we believe, is not the place to dwell on the reasons for the collapse of the USSR, but we will only say that among these reasons were excessive military spending, which led to the bankruptcy of a great power.
And now James Foggo and Eleric Fritz, and with them dozens of other American and Western European naval authorities, are proclaiming the coming of the fourth battle for the Atlantic. In an interview with The National Interest, which specializes in United States national security issues, the Proceedings writing duo expanded on their ideas. They argue that "the biggest threat to US and NATO navies in Europe is Russia's powerful submarine fleet and its new Denial of Access (A2/AD) bastions in the Kaliningrad region and elsewhere."
Here the admiral and the naval expert resort to the somewhat sophisticated American terminology that has become popular across the ocean over the past three or four years. Anti-access / area-denial (A2 / AD) - literally translated as "access denied / area blocked." In simple terms, this means that the armed forces of the United States and NATO cannot freely deploy their ships, aircraft and military units in certain areas of the world without the threat of being destroyed. It was first used in relation to China, which put into service anti-ship ballistic missiles.
DF-21D, which made the presence of American aircraft carriers off the coast of China meaningless, since they are capable of hitting floating airfields at a distance of up to 2000 km. And now, according to foreign military experts, Russia has created the same access denial zones around the Kaliningrad region, off the coast of Crimea, in the Kamchatka region, around the Syrian cities of Tartus and Latakia. In our opinion, full-fledged no-access zones in these areas are still far away, but the foundations for their creation certainly exist.
Let's focus on the question itself. If a country takes care of its security and builds defense lines, then it thereby creates a threat to the United States and its NATO allies. That is, military construction throughout the world should be subordinated exclusively to the interests of Washington and its partners. And nothing else. It's not even a paradox, it's paranoia.
According to Foggo, "the Russians are building a series of stealth diesel-electric submarines that are part of Russia's no-access strategy." Indeed, project 06363 diesel-electric submarines are excellent submarines capable of performing a wide range of tasks: patrolling, reconnaissance, striking coastal and sea targets, laying mines, transporting combat swimmers, etc. Obviously, they are capable of “denying access” to forces hostile to Russia in certain water areas adjacent to the shores of the country. But, in our opinion, in this particular case, the “halibuts” are attracted to the “Russian strategy of denying access” clearly by the ears, since it has nothing to do with the fourth battle for the Atlantic.
American experts did not forget the Russian multi-purpose nuclear-powered ships of project 885 "Ash". “The nuclear submarine Severodvinsk makes a strong impression,” the commander of the 6th Fleet states with obvious regret. “The submarines that the Russians have are of great concern to us,” sings along to Admiral Elerick Fritz, “because they are very combat-ready and are an extremely maneuverable tool of the Russian Armed Forces.”
A similar view is shared by the British Vice Admiral Clive Johnston, who heads NATO Naval Command. A number of his statements on this subject were cited by the well-known international military-technical and military-political magazine Jane's Defense Weekly. This admiral says that the North Atlantic Alliance is concerned about the record high level of Russian submarine activity in the North Atlantic: “The activity of Russian submarines in the North "The Atlantic is currently equaling or even surpassing Cold War levels. Russian submarines are not only returning to Cold War levels in operational performance, but they have also taken a big leap forward in their technological performance and are demonstrating a level of Russian capability that we have not seen before."
PALE SHADOW
However, not all Western naval experts demonstrate such frank alarmist sentiments. There is a fairly large group of experts who do not share the views of their colleagues.
“The Russian submarine fleet, dormant for twenty years without sea voyages and money for military service, is starting to show signs of life again,” Michael Kofman of the Kennan Institute at the Woodrow Wilson Center said in an article posted on the CNN website. - Russia has been absent from the underwater world for a long time, which is why most NATO countries have either reduced their submarine fleet or completely abandoned the forces and means of conducting submarine warfare. Relations with Russia were politically irritable but militarily stable, and the Russian submarine fleet stood against the wall and in many cases rusted and died quietly at the piers.
It is hard not to agree with the assessment of the American expert. A similar picture was observed not only in the submarine fleet, but in the Russian Navy as a whole. The Swiss website Offiziere.ch published on December 16 last year a comparative table compiled by Louis Martin-Visian about the ship composition of the Soviet Navy in 1990 and the Russian Navy in 2015. It has minor inaccuracies, but they do not affect the overall picture. The table shows that over a quarter of a century, the number of warships in the fleet has decreased from 657 units to 172, including the number of SSBNs has decreased from 59 units to 13, including the experimental "Dmitry Donskoy" project 941U, nuclear submarines with cruise missiles from 58 units to 6, multi-purpose nuclear-powered ships from 64 to 17, diesel-electric submarines from 59 to 20, cruisers (according to NATO practice, the author of the table also includes large anti-submarine ships of projects 1134A and 1134B) from 30 to 3, destroyers, taking into account the BOD projects 1155 and 11551 from 45 units to 14, frigates and corvettes (patrol ships) from 122 units to 10, large landing ships from 42 units to 19. The total number of small missile ships, missile boats and small anti-submarine ships, which tightly and reliably held the defense of the country's coasts, fell from 168 units to 68. The table does not include mine-sweeping ships, landing and artillery boats, but it is known that their number has catastrophically “collapsed”. Considering that these forces have practically not been updated and are “stretched” into five maritime and ocean theaters (see the US Navy intelligence map), it is simply ridiculous to talk about the return of the Russian Navy to the level of the Cold War era.
“The reality is,” Michael Kofman points out, “that the Russian submarine force today is just a pale shadow of the formidable Soviet submarine fleet, which numbered hundreds of submarines. Despite all the talk about combat readiness, only half of Russian submarines are currently capable of going to sea at any given time ... And although the activity of the Russian submarine fleet has increased significantly, at least judging by the statements of the country's Navy command, these numbers can impress only in comparison with the early 2000s, when submarines almost never went to sea. Claims that Russian submarine forces operate “at Cold War levels” are exaggerations at best. This is simply impossible. These forces are coming out of a coma, throwing down the traditional challenge to NATO in the Mediterranean and the North Atlantic, but they are dwarfed by the size of the Soviet Cold War submarine fleet.”
Michael Kofman draws attention to the fact that the construction of Russian SSBNs and SSBNs is behind schedule, "and the entire military shipbuilding program is in question due to Russian economic hardships." In an interview with the same edition of The National Interest, Kofman paid more attention to the Project 885 Yasen nuclear submarine, drawing attention to the fact that the lead submarine of this type not only took too long to build, but also tested for a very long time: “The first Yasen-type boat passed sea tests for several years and only this year went into operation.
It is impossible not to recall here that the Severodvinsk nuclear submarine was put into trial operation on December 30, 2013, and on June 17 next year She was officially included in the Russian Navy. However, in March of this year, Deputy Commander-in-Chief of the Russian Navy, Vice Admiral Alexander Fedotenkov, said that this submarine "completed trial operation." So when did it happen: in June 2014 or in March 2016? Here it should be noted that in the official statement of the press service of the Northern Fleet dated March 19 this year, it was not about “trial operation”, but about “completion of the development of the lead ship of the Yasen project”. It can be assumed that in June 2014 the boat was put into operation in advance, since President Vladimir Putin was expected to arrive at the Northern Fleet, and it was like - it's awkward.
Drawing attention to the low pace of construction of the Yasen-class nuclear submarine, Michael Kofman says: “Each subsequent boat, in fact, is built in a handicraft way. Who knows what characteristics the next boat "Kazan" will have or the one that will be built after it? They take so much time to build that serial production is out of the question.” One cannot but agree with this argument. When laying the Kazan in 2009, it was said that the boat would be commissioned in 2014. Then the schedule was shifted to the right - until 2017. It has now been officially announced that the fleet will receive the submarine in 2018.
Still, Michael Kofman sees a threat from Russian submarines. “Of course,” he concludes, “given the reduction of the US Navy, especially in the European theater, as well as the gaps in the development of modern NATO allies in the development of modern capabilities, even such a small submarine fleet can create problems because it is difficult to track and contain. So military leaders are right to express concern in today's confrontation and unstable relationship with Russia."
DON'T MINUTE AND DON'T EXAGGER
The same approach, that is, not downplaying, but not exaggerating the capabilities of the modern Russian fleet, primarily the submarine, is also followed by retired US Navy captain Thomas Fedyshin. He is a professional naval sailor - he served on various ships US Navy, including commanding missile destroyer William V. Pratt (DDG 44) and the missile cruiser Normandy (CG 60), was a naval attache in Russia - and now a naval expert, director of the Europe-Russia Research Group at the US Naval War College, where higher officer cadre of the United States Navy. In an article under the eloquent title "Putin's Navy is more than Potemkin villages" published by Proceedings magazine in May this year, Fedyshin writes: "Western experts tend to jump to conclusions about the weakness of the Russian Navy when they claim that the Russians are only bluffing and dust in your eyes. Although much is being done for show, the Russian navy is still dangerous.” In support of this thesis, he gives several examples. So, since 2009, the wear of Russian sailors has noticeably increased. According to him, although the TASS news agency is probably exaggerating when it reports that 70 warships of the Navy are constantly on combat duty in the oceans, one cannot but note a dramatic increase in the time spent by Russian sailors on campaigns. “There is little talk about this, but there are no more conscripts on the new Russian ships and those that perform the most important tasks,” the author of the publication emphasizes. “Thus, the level of training of sailors is growing, which, of course, has a positive effect on the state of the Navy.” The number of maneuvers has increased, including joint ones with the navies of other states. Last year, the Russian Navy and the Chinese Navy held the largest joint exercise in their history in the Sea of Japan, as well as in the Mediterranean Sea.
Thomas Fedyshin pays special attention to the role of the Russian Navy in the Syrian crisis: “Unexpected launches of sea-based cruise missiles from the Caspian Sea followed in October and from the Mediterranean Sea in October. Russian missiles flew over 1,500 km and hit the terrorist forces.”
And this is what the author concludes: “In the end, the Russian Navy became large and strong enough for Russia to influence international affairs in nearby regions. And this gun is capable of shooting at a target... Having analyzed the Russian Navy from the point of view of naval strategy, ongoing operations and the state of shipbuilding in the country, we come to the conclusion that the Russian fleet has returned the status of one of the leading in the world. Its current condition is better than at any time since the end of the Cold War. Judged by classical principles of capability and intent, the Russian Navy can be considered a threat to Western interests, at least in Russian coastal waters. However, since the Russian fleet is noticeably inferior to NATO forces in the high seas and oceans, it is unlikely that it will conduct serious demonstrations of force or any offensive operations away from its native shores.
WEAPON SELECTION
Let's sum up some of the discussion about state of the art Russian fleet. Yes, now and in the foreseeable future, the Russian Navy will not be able to compete with the navies of the United States, other NATO countries, as well as their partners in the Asia-Pacific region, neither in the number of ships, nor in the type order of a number of classes of surface ships. In order to fulfill the tasks assigned to the Navy to prevent aggression against Russia from sea and ocean areas, it is necessary to determine as accurately as possible the composition of forces and means capable of reliably protecting the country, especially in the current very constrained financial circumstances. Now here there is confusion and vacillation. For example, in the media, one can often find statements by high-ranking military and shipbuilding industry figures about preparations for the construction of nuclear destroyers of cruising displacement and nuclear aircraft carriers. In addition to huge costs and unmeasured deadlines, this will not result in anything.
For twenty years of actual downtime in the shipbuilding industry, personnel, many key skills and technologies have been lost. Meanwhile, the fleet urgently needs to be updated. Suffice it to say that for a quarter of a century, the largest and most powerful Russian Northern Fleet from surface ships received only the heavy nuclear-powered missile cruiser Peter the Great and the BOD Admiral Chabanenko, laid down in Soviet times and entered service in the 90s of the last century. True, this year the arrival of the Grachonok anti-sabotage boat of project 21980 with a displacement of 140 tons is expected.
Russian industry is already capable of serial construction of minesweepers and small missile ships. The latter proved their high efficiency in the Syrian operation. They not only carry out missile strikes against terrorists, but also protect Russian facilities on the territory of the SAR from the sea. The frigates of project 11356R/M also turned out to be successful and balanced. Their construction is known to be constrained by sanctions on the supply of gas turbine engines. But sooner or later this problem will be solved. It is required to bring to mind even more advanced frigates of project 22350, as well as corvettes of project 20380/20385. It is frigates that should become the top bar in the surface military shipbuilding of Russia. These multi-purpose ships are capable of solving all the tasks facing the Russian Navy in the near and far zones.
The bet on superships is futile. And because we have forgotten how to build them, and because they are insanely expensive, and because, despite all their super-armament, the US Navy and NATO will be able to cope with them. You don't have to go far for examples. Officially announced that the timing of the transfer of the Navy after the modernization of heavy nuclear cruiser"Admiral Nakhimov" shifted from 2018 two years to the right. Recall that work on it started in the spring of 2014, but the cleaning of old structures has not yet been completed. Obviously, it will not be possible to meet the re-equipment of the ship by 2020. We'll have to "steer" to the right again. In the meantime, for the same money, you can build several much-needed frigates and even more corvettes, not to mention RTOs - their bill would go to dozens.
As Lenta.ru recently reported, the defense industry and the Russian Navy are considering the possibility of equipping all new-generation rank 1-2 warships with nuclear power plants. Such a trend, they say, is due to the fact that the development and production of nuclear power plants are established in Russia and do not depend on supplies from abroad. As the source of the agency said, “we are talking about creating a line of unified installations for surface ships with a displacement of 4,000 tons (frigate) to 80 thousand tons or more (aircraft carrier), with a capacity of, conditionally, from 40 to 200 megawatts. Taking into account the fact that the needs of the Navy in the next twenty years in ships of ranks 1-2 can be estimated at about 40 units, the production of such a number of installations will not be particularly difficult.
A paradoxical situation is emerging: they say, because we do not have reliable diesel engines and currently there are no gas turbines at all, let's equip large surface ships with nuclear power plants. Has anyone calculated the cost of this idea? Russia still has problems with the disposal of decommissioned nuclear power plants, and we are forced to seek foreign help, scaring our neighbors that without their help we can poison half the planet with radioactive waste. Finally, have you thought about the fact that a warship with a nuclear power plant will plow the seas and oceans in cheerful company boats and Greenpeace ships and it will not be allowed into most ports of the world? Therefore, there is no one to demonstrate the flag. With the help of nuclear monsters, one can only frighten foreign inhabitants and shake money out of them for military spending by the United States, NATO and others like them. And in the end, this will lead to the fact that the Russian Navy will not receive ships at all - neither large nor small.
The experience of the era of the Cold War and the present time convincingly proves that we can only "get" the countries hostile to us with submarines. Therefore, the construction of multi-purpose nuclear submarines should not drag on for decades, but become strictly rhythmic. Ashes are really excellent boats (for more details, see National Defense magazine No. 3/2015). They should not become obsolete on the stocks.
In March of this year, it became known about the work on the fifth-generation multi-purpose nuclear submarine, which received the code "Husky". Its appearance is still being formed, but it is known that it will become a further development of the Project 885 nuclear submarine and will be armed with Zircon hypersonic missiles, the testing of which has already begun. Of course, it is difficult to judge the future ship from computer drawings of this submarine that appeared on the Internet, especially since this “image” itself may not correspond to reality or will change over time. And yet, it is possible to form a certain idea about the future nuclear submarine. The ideally streamlined spindly hull of the Husky strongly resembles the Project 1710 experimental submarine-laboratory SS-530, which was once created for research in the field of hydrodynamics and acoustics of promising submarines. The branded Malachite limousine form of retractable devices fencing also contributes to an exceptionally “clean” silent flow around. The entire fore end is occupied by the radome of a conformal large-sized GAS antenna. Behind him are the covers of twenty-two vertical launchers for firing rockets and torpedoes. At the same time, each launcher can accommodate several units of torpedo or rocket weapons. They can also be used to accommodate uninhabited underwater vehicles and combat swimmer transporters. The propulsion of the boat, again, to reduce noise, is in an annular nozzle of the Pump Jet type. Tail rudders - cruciform. One can only guess about the Husky nuclear power plant and electronic equipment. But, undoubtedly, this nuclear submarine will be a highly automated ship - a further development of high-speed submarines of project 705, which had the designation "Alfa" in the West.
At the end of this month, the laying of the Perm nuclear submarine is expected - the sixth boat of the Yasen family, and a year later another one, which completes the series. Then the construction of Husky-type boats will begin.
Submarines with nuclear installations in our country and abroad are expensive, even very expensive. Part of the tasks they perform can be taken over by diesel-electric submarines or NAPLs. The former include Project 06363 submarines, six of which are intended for the Black Sea Fleet and three of which have already arrived at their home base - Novorossiysk. Six more of these boats will be built according to a slightly modified project for Pacific Fleet to "cool down" anti-Russian passions in Japan.
And in 2018, at the Admiralty Shipyards, it is planned to lay the laying of the Kalina-type nuclear submarine - a fifth-generation non-nuclear boat with auxiliary air independence (anaerobic) power plant(VNEU), which will allow the submarine not to surface for several weeks. This will be a qualitative leap in the development of Russian submarine forces.
As we know, project 06363 "halibuts" can launch missile attacks on the enemy. But they can stay under water for only a few days. That is, these submarines are forced to surface to recharge batteries and thereby unmask itself. Even the use of a device for operating the engine under water (snorkel) does not guarantee stealth. And only VNEU and high-capacity lithium-ion batteries, or even better a combination of these energy sources, make it possible for non-nuclear submarines to be truly underwater.
|
|
If everything works out, and we believe in it, then the Kalina-type nuclear submarines and their modifications should become the most massive ships of the Russian fleet, maybe not as numerous as the Project 613 diesel-electric submarines (215 units) in Soviet times, but about 50-60 units can be spoken. And then the “wolf packs” of the Russian Navy, consisting of viburnums, halibuts, ash trees and huskies, will be able to exert tight pressure on the coasts of America, European NATO states and their partners in other regions of the world. This is necessary in order to drive away Arleigh Burke-class destroyers with SM-3 anti-missiles and Tomahawk cruise missiles from the seas washing Russia. They will be forced to leave to ensure the anti-submarine defense of the United States
Now the Russian Navy has 62 submarines, 39 of which are nuclear-powered. Plus, 17 new submarines are currently being built, 13 of them nuclear-powered. By 2023, Russia will have about 80 submarines, 52 of them nuclear-powered.
"Condor", "Borey", "Varshavyanka"
Clickable
The American communications fleet, with a pronounced offensive focus, has completely abandoned diesel-electric submarines. The last diesel-electric submarine "Growler" was built in 1958.
The US now has 69 submarines (all nuclear-powered). In 2010 there were 74, but Americans are decommissioning old boats faster than they are building new ones. There are currently only 4 new submarines under construction in the United States.
By 2023, America will have 58 submarines, and by 2029 their number will drop to 55 (41 strike and 14 old-old Ohio SSBNs). At the same time, part of the submarines is tied to the aircraft carrier groups that they cover.
An interesting comparison of the performance characteristics of the PLATRK "Ash", "Virginia" and "Sivulf":
Length: 140 m - 115 m - 108 m
Width: 13 m - 10.5 m - 12.2 m
Surface displacement: 8600 t - 7000 t - 7500 t
Underwater displacement: 13800 t - 8000 t - 9100 t
Surface speed: 16 knots - n/a - 18 knots
Underwater speed: 31 knots - 29.5 knots - 34 knots
Working depth - 520 m - n / a - 480 m
Maximum depth: 600 m - 490 m - 600 m
Crew: 64 people - 120 people - 126 people
Autonomy: 100 days - n / a - n / a
Armament:
10 TA, 30 torpedoes, 32 KR launchers
4 TA, 26 torpedoes, 12 KR launchers
8 TA, 50 torpedoes or 50 CR
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. 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 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 boats 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 the entire American fleet, 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.
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 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)
The American aircraft carrier "Harry Truman" is approaching 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 has subsided, and with a sober look, two indisputable facts become 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 and united, that it has everything under control;
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 attack squadrons (the fourth provides air cover for the AUG) with 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 seven months) and also needs to be repaired. In 2016, our sluggish shipbuilding industry performed a real miracle, restoring the technical readiness of both cruisers and ensuring not only a brilliant demonstration, but also the use of their military force during the Syrian campaign, However, 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 to two weeks.
A certain consolation is the fact that in the Syrian theater of operations Russia has own "unsinkable aircraft carrier": Khmeimim airbase, located just 2.5 km from the Mediterranean coast. In connection with the approach of the American armada, it makes sense to relocate all the 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) . Be "Moscow" now on the go, 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 leg 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 operational formation of the Russian Navy in the Mediterranean Sea completed their task, since enemy ships launched from their area of responsibility only nine missiles out of 69(13%). The Americans preferred to shoot "from around the corner" - from where ours were not.
In the north, a missile cruiser of the same type as the Moskva is completing a course of combat training (handing over course tasks) after a dock repair "Marshal Ustinov", one of our trump cards ("aircraft carrier killer" with the most powerful anti-ship complex "Volcano"). 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 the Yaroslav the Wise TFR to the Mediterranean, could also strengthen the operational connection with a pair 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 range of direct radar visibility, both the Uran, and the air defense system, and 100-mm gun mounts will be useful. It is unfortunate that the terrible melee weapon - the destroyer "Persistent" with four 130-mm automatic cannons and supersonic anti-ship missiles of the "Moskit" complex - will be out of repair only in the fall. Finally, the new Admiral Makarov TFR, which was handed over to the Navy at the very end of last year, is still in the Baltic.
In turn, not as soon as we would like (up to 20 days), the KUG may be brought up from the Far East 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 at 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. Confidence is not so great in relation to Nizhny Novgorod, even less in relation to Panther. In addition, from the north it is possible (and even necessary) to send one of the three anti-aircraft cruisers to the NPM: "Orel", "Voronezh" or "Smolensk".
As a result, about the same number of NK and submarines of the Russian Navy could 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 entirely hopeless. This is due to two circumstances.
Firstly, the anti-ship capabilities of the armada are most likely limited by the outdated Harpoon anti-ship missiles., massive application 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 during the years of the previous Cold War, when Soviet ships relentlessly followed enemy ships, ready, in fact, for sea hand-to-hand combat using all available weapons, does not leave the Americans a 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 designate one more real way, which the Navy can help the motherland in a threatened period. Namely: withdraw all guided missile submarines 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.
On the whole, 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.