In the USA they admit: We have completely lost the “sea battle” to Russia


Missile cruiser "Moscow". Photo: Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation


The panic that arose in the United States over a single Russian reconnaissance vessel that frightened the Americans with its “erratic maneuvers” off the coast of Florida and South Carolina to hiccups is only part of the extremely nervous reaction that Washington has been displaying recently in confronting our countries in the naval area.

Accustomed to consider themselves absolute “masters of the seas,” the guys who plowed the waves famously under star-striped flags experienced great surprise and enormous disappointment, making sure that they were no longer such. How did that happen?

The race of aircraft carriers continues. What's the point ?!


Starting my story, I can already foresee the wave of anger and sarcasm that some “especially advanced” readers will pour on the author: “Yes, they have aircraft carriers there! And we have ... "Kuznetsov" - and he burned out! " Well, and so on, in the same vein. I won’t try for you guys. Write yourself in the comments below. And I can not disagree: yes, alas, the only aircraft carrier of the Russian Navy directly pursues evil rock. And at this very time, the second aircraft carrier, Shandong, was officially commissioned by the PLA in China yesterday. He is the first ship of this class, built independently in the Celestial Empire, albeit by the method of complete copying of the Soviet "Varyag", which was so successfully purchased from Ukraine "on occasion" in due time. And next in line are the Chinese aircraft carriers of project 002, more modern. A week ago, the same joyful event took place in the Royal Navy of Great Britain, where the second aircraft carrier of the Queen Elizabeth series - Prince of Wales - was adopted. This ship, the construction of which was started in 2011, finally seems to be "brought to mind." It remains to wish the British sea wolves that the newfound "Prince" out of order at least slightly less than its predecessor, "Queen". The first of the modern aircraft carriers of this series, I recall, has already survived two serious breakdowns since launching in 2017. Now it is located off the coast of the United States, where, after the repair of the hull, another test is underway.


Chinese Navy Aircraft Carrier. Photo: Baycrest / wikipedia.org


The United States in the "aircraft carrier issue" stably continues to stay ahead of the rest. The other day, representatives of the US Navy delighted their compatriots on the social networks: currently 7 of its aircraft carriers are “afloat”. Having gotten out of endless repairs and “advanced services” and left the docks, they nevertheless joined the fleets to which they were assigned. Two months ago, the picture was far less optimistic - USS George Washington (CVN-73) and USS John C. Stennis (CVN-74) were undergoing major repairs, USS Carl Vinson (CVN-70) and USS George HW Bush (CVN -77) passed in-depth maintenance, and USS Ronald Reagan (CVN-76) stuck in the Japanese port without going to sea. USS Harry S. Truman (CVN-75) was completely in an unusable condition, "due to electrical failure." Closed up, see, something ... In fact, only the USS Dwight D. Eisenhower (CVN-69) and the USS Gerald R. Ford (CVN-78) were ready to bring democracy and “American values” to the world. And finally, all the strongholds of the US naval power are again ready to plow the waves and carry out their combat missions. How long? How to know. Yes, this, however, is not so important. The publications that recently appeared in a number of authoritative American media made a completely unambiguous conclusion: the new weapons of Russia actually put an end to the long and successful history of “floating airfields”, transferring them from the category of invincible strike force to the category of simply very large targets .. .

Zircons decide everything


I’ll clarify right away: approximately the same analytical materials on this subject, clearly without saying a word, were published by such respected media as Military Watch Magazine, The Drive and even Forbes. Well, not “Kremlin propaganda” in any way! And all of them unanimously say: with the adoption by Russia of the adoption of the 3M22 Zircon hypersonic anti-ship missiles with a range of up to 1000 kilometers and a flight speed of 8–9 Machs, the balance of forces in the world’s oceans changes in the most dramatic way - and not at all in favor of the United States and their allies. Military analysts quoted by the American press reluctantly admit that no modern warship has a chance against new "terrifying" Russian missiles. For the Aegis missile defense system protecting the combat ships of the North Atlantic block, the target’s speed is already at 3 Mach. There is no need to talk about the likelihood of intercepting Zircons exceeding it three times. No options ... To the incredible speed indicators (a rocket will “flash” about 200 kilometers per minute!), Exceptional maneuvering abilities during the flight, radar stealth and other deadly “charms” are also added. According to the conclusion made by the same Military Watch Magazine, a single Zircon hit is more than enough to sink any of the US Navy's aircraft carriers, simply tearing it in half like a cardboard box. But they warned me! However, even during the construction and commissioning of the latest, nuclear USS Gerald R. Ford, the “hypersonic hazard” was not taken into account. And in vain ...


U.S. Navy aircraft carrier. Photo: Andrew J Sneeringer / US Navy


As a result, the US Navy received a ship with a missile defense system that was completely unable to withstand the same Zircons or, say, their Chinese counterparts. Hoping, you know, on the "stealthtechnology", Which will hide the aircraft carrier from enemy radars. Invisibility with a displacement of 100 thousand tons and four hundred meters without a length is something ... If we take into account that the flight range of our anti-ship missiles exceeds the range of actions of carrier-based aircraft by about two times, the question arises: was it worth creating such a luxurious floating mass grave for more than $ 17 billion ?! Nevertheless, the Pentagon is not going to abandon aircraft carrier plans and threatens to launch four more vessels of the Gerald R. Ford series by 2034. Well, the flag, as they say, is in the hands of ... Zircons, for the same time, we will definitely have time to make more. Enough for everyone. By the way, American experts are well aware that in the case of a sea-based missile that scared them (on the same and multi-purpose nuclear submarines, large anti-submarine ships, or even the latest project 20 385 “Thundering” corvettes), it can be applied not only to their ships , but also on the very “decision centers”, about which Vladimir Putin so frankly expressed himself at one time. Two or three warships with three to four dozen Zircons in the corresponding parts of the Pacific and Atlantic oceans - that, in fact, is all that is required to ensure that only these radioactive funnels remain from these centers. The successful implementation of the hypersonic weapons project "opens up a direct path for Russia and its allies to establish a new regional order." This, I repeat, is the opinion of American experts and journalists.

Old strategies are no longer relevant


However, they are not the same “Zircons” ... The conclusion made in the subtitle was voiced by the analyst of the Washington Center for Strategic and International Studies Andrew Metric in the pages of the journal of the US Naval Institute Proceedings (also, you must agree, neither never the "mouthpiece of the Kremlin"!). He did it in the process of “debriefing” regarding the actions of NATO forces during the large-scale exercises of the Russian Navy submarines at the northern sea borders of our Motherland at the end of this autumn. There really were a lot of flights - from October 25 to December 7, combat and reconnaissance vehicles of anti-submarine aircraft of the USA, Canada, Norway, and France were barrage in the sky over the Atlantic. 13 aircraft made more than 40 sorties, trying to track the possible routes of Russian submarines and their location along the so-called Faroe-Icelandic line, stretching in the ocean from Greenland to Iceland and the UK. Previously, this feature was considered the "red line" that our submariners must certainly cross in order to break into the operational space of the North Atlantic and guaranteed to deliver targeted missile attacks on ships and military facilities of NATO. However, now, according to the same Andrew Metric, there is no sense in “standing to death” on the Faroe-Icelandic border! Russian submarines, if necessary, can smash to smithereens, at least, those objects of the North Atlantic Alliance that are located in Europe, not going beyond it!

Caliber cruise missiles, with a target range of nearly 2 and a half thousand kilometers, armed with the same nuclear submarines of the Ash project, can be launched from the Russian waters of the Norwegian and Barents Seas and guaranteed to “cover” NATO strategic ports. The same German Bremerhaven, for example, through which "in which case" the bulk of the US troops will be transferred to Europe. Most likely, the “Norman landing” of the 7st century sample will fail. At the current level of arms development, Metrik believes, the Russian naval fleet controls the Old World completely and completely, and all the old strategies to “counter” its actions, the generals and admirals of the Alliance can, excuse me, throw them in the trash. However, they themselves do not think so. On November XNUMX this year, in Hamburg, the leaders of the Navy of Germany, Great Britain, France, Belgium and the Netherlands signed another agreement aimed, as the text says, to “contain the Russian threat in the North Sea and English Channel”. This summit took place as part of the activities of the NATO advisory body - the Channel Committee (CHANCOM), created back in the years of the Cold War to ensure the security of the Alliance's maritime communications in this region. Have the teachings of our submariners become a kind of response to this demarche? Everyone is free to interpret as he likes best. In the end, we are a world-class sovereign power, and wherever we want, there we conduct teachings.

For example, in late December 2019 - early January 2020, the naval maneuvers of our ships, together with the forces of the Chinese and Iranian Navy, will be held in the Indian Ocean. As officially announced, to strengthen regional security and prevent piracy. Although the sea urchin is clear that the cramps from the very fact of these exercises will not be beaten by some local filibusters, but by the command of the Fifth Fleet of the US Navy. Kuznetsova, of course, is a pity. However, to claim on the basis of the sad fate that befell this ship is not worth the right to claim that "Russia is losing the status of a sea power" and draw similar defeatist conclusions. Well, if the Americans are not ashamed to admit that they think in a completely different way, we will certainly not be discouraged.
Ctrl Enter

Noticed oshЫbku Highlight text and press. Ctrl + Enter

19 comments
Information

Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.
I have an account? Sign in

  1. Arkharov Offline
    Arkharov (Grigory Arkharov) 18 December 2019 09: 14
    -11
    • 2
    • 13
    Some kind of nonsense. It is clear that after the “Kuzi” it is necessary to raise the degree somehow. But as for the fleet, the author would first look at the quantitative ratio of ships, and in general, unfortunately, not only our fleet has anti-ship missiles and submarines. In general, the usual hatred of the author, already passed before, did not lead to anything good.
    1. A.Lex Offline
      A.Lex (Secret information) 19 December 2019 19: 31
      -1
      • 0
      • 1
      Quantity at the expense of quality, Grisha? Since when?
    2. Nick Offline
      Nick (Nikolai) 20 December 2019 03: 58
      0
      • 1
      • 1
      Quote: Arkharov
      about the fleet, the author would first look at the proportion of ships

      Now is the 21st century, not the 18th. Ships are now being drowned not by ships, but by anti-ship missiles, missile torpedoes, and not necessarily sea-based.

      Quote: Arkharov
      Actually, unfortunately, not only our fleet has anti-ship missiles and nuclear submarines.

      Only subsonic ones developed in the 70s of the last century. They lagged behind the Russians for one or two generations.
  2. Sergey Latyshev Offline
    Sergey Latyshev (Serge) 18 December 2019 09: 16
    -2
    • 2
    • 4
    For some reason, it is thought that the “American panic” is only in the author’s article. No link to NI even.
    Well, then - the usual "they have a scribe, we have oh-hoo," as if there was no Military Review with his analyst.
  3. Bakht Offline
    Bakht (Bakhtiyar) 18 December 2019 09: 49
    +8
    • 9
    • 1
    The fact that giants aircraft carriers are not suitable for a global war has been clear for a long time. Well, no one will send George Ford to the shores of the enemy, even having coastal anti-ship systems.
    AUG is a projection of force on a remote theater. And the Russian Federation does not have such a projection of power. But the question must be raised a little differently. Does the Russian Federation need such a projection? What exactly could the AUG or Kuznetsov do in the hostilities against Syria? Despite a couple of hundred tomahawks, we can say that nothing. And Kuznetsov could not do anything. The Russian Navy was desperately needed in the Syrian conflict ... Mistrals. Or ships of a similar class. That is, BDK. The Syrian Express worked to its limits.
    Well, and the Americans can perfectly use their AUG against countries such as Libya or ... Venezuela. The countries that do not have strong anti-submarine defense in the world are the vast majority. And one AUG can break a country like a Tuzik heating pad.
    1. Bitter Offline
      Bitter (Gleb) 18 December 2019 11: 02
      0
      • 2
      • 2
      ... giants aircraft carriers are not suitable for a global war, that’s clear.

      Definitely, in a global war, you can organize the production of bows, darts and canoes.

      no one will send George Ford to the shores of the enemy, even having coastal anti-ship complexes

      So, you must first ensure the possibility of an approach and then approach as much as possible.

      AUG is a projection of force on a remote theater. And the Russian Federation does not have such a projection of power.

      In order to project something somewhere, it is necessary to have it, if there is power, there are projection means. And if not, then nefig this phantom and project.

      Does the Russian Federation need such a projection?

      In light of African and other investments, it seems that soon it will be very necessary.

      one AUG can break a country like a Tuzik heating pad

      Or maybe not. It depends on what prizes are at stake, both on the one hand and on the other.

      Americans can perfectly use their AUG

      Where they deem it necessary or necessary. Fact.
    2. 123 Offline
      123 (123) 18 December 2019 12: 06
      +2
      • 3
      • 1
      Does the Russian Federation need such a projection?

      Apparently needed. We need markets, without them the economy will run into the ceiling of limited domestic demand. Areas of influence created, Africa Latin America, Southeast Asia. The two UDCs built in the Crimea are not being built for short shipping. The Marine Corps is being transformed into an expeditionary force https://topwar.ru/163773-rossijskuju-morskuju-pehotu-reformirujut-v-jekspedicionnye-vojska-rossii.html I think Admiral Nakhimov is not modernized for walking along the coast. the aircraft carrier fits into the overall picture quite harmoniously.

      What exactly could the AUG or Kuznetsov do in the hostilities against Syria?

      As I understand it, what do you mean "in Syria". Honestly a little. You will laugh, but in the bombing of Yugoslavia and Iraq, ground-based aviation did the bulk of the work. An aircraft carrier cannot fully replace a ground airfield. He is needed as a supplement, his dignity is mobility. Imagine that we did not have a base in Khmeimim, in such a situation, "Kuznetsov" or just nothing, which is better in your opinion?

      The Russian Navy was desperately needed in the Syrian conflict ... Mistrals. Or ships of a similar class. That is, BDK. The Syrian Express worked to its limits.

      BDKs are not intended for such work, it was a necessary measure, if you remember, our civilian courts simply revoked insurance, did not allow them to enter ports, etc. By the way, UDC is not intended for this, transport ships are needed here, like this one: “Junior Corporal Roy Vit” (“USNS LCPL ROY M. WHEAT”), former “Vladimir Vaslyaev” Black Sea Shipping Company.


      The link is a little more detailed https://topwar.ru/18367-sovetskiy-korabl-v-sostave-sil-bystrogo-reagirovaniya-vms-ssha.html
      1. Bakht Offline
        Bakht (Bakhtiyar) 18 December 2019 12: 22
        +2
        • 2
        • 0
        In Yugoslavia (partly in Libya), ground aviation played a greater role due to the proximity of NATO bases. We are talking about remote theater. No aircraft carrier or AUG can operate without an extensive network of basing and supply. In addition to the aircraft carrier itself, a group is needed (this has already snapped up). But few write about the supply of such a group away from their native coasts. Kuznetsov off the coast of Syria either helped to wet the barmalei, or was under the umbrella of Khmeimin.
        Ships at sea are vulnerable. Any defense of missile defense, air defense and so on breaks through sooner or later. So closer than 1000 km to the protected coast, they will not fit. Another thing, defenseless countries.
        About the transport ships. There are a lot of specifics that are better known at naval headquarters. UDC carries both the marines and helicopters (possibly aircraft of the GDP). Something like the Mistral is urgently needed to solve such problems.
        It is now impossible to actually transfer the country to the rails of naval power. On land would fight back. So the Russian Navy at this stage (!) Must solve purely defensive tasks. The maximum that you can swing at this stage (!) Is the Eastern Mediterranean. And only with the support of Syria, Egypt and (possibly) Turkey. Only if there are bases in these countries can the American fleet be squeezed out of the Eastern Mediterranean.
        Even China, with its immeasurably greater ambitions, plans to create a full-fledged ocean fleet by the year 2050 (in 30 years). And this despite the fact that on the stocks they already have the 7th aircraft carrier.
        1. 123 Offline
          123 (123) 18 December 2019 14: 54
          +3
          • 3
          • 0
          We are talking about remote theater. No aircraft carrier or AUG can operate without an extensive network of basing and supply. In addition to the aircraft carrier itself, you need a group (this is already sore.) But few write about the supply of such a group away from their native coasts.

          The availability of bases, of course, facilitates logistics, and there is no point in arguing. That a support group is needed is also not news. By the time the repair is completed, the group will assemble without problems. There will be someone to guard, and there are no problems with the supply and supply vessels. They are built and enter the fleet.

          Kuznetsov off the coast of Syria either helped to wet the barmalei, or was under the umbrella of Khmeimin.

          I think that there was no real need for his presence there, they decided to break in in combat conditions, I must say not very successfully. In my opinion, the problems are both technical and the lack of experienced qualified pilots. As for the umbrella, why not? The air defense there is serious, there is no need for a security group.

          Ships at sea are vulnerable. Any defense of missile defense, air defense and so on breaks through sooner or later. So closer than 1000 km to the protected coast, they will not fit. Another thing is defenseless countries.

          I don’t think that there are plans to attack defenseless countries, but if landing is planned, it means that there is an opportunity to approach the shore closer, therefore the aircraft carrier will be able to. Nobody is going to take to UDC straight to the shore, bristling with missiles.

          It is now impossible to actually transfer the country to the rails of naval power. On land would fight back.

          Why? The rearmament of the army is coming to an end, it is time to shift the focus to the fleet. Moreover, it helps to "fight off on land", it is elementary more difficult to approach from the sea.

          So the Russian Navy at this stage (!) Must solve purely defensive tasks.

          I mean stupid defense of the coastline? By the way, as I understand it, no one is thinking about the attack.

          The maximum that you can at this stage (!) Swipe is the Eastern Mediterranean. And only with the support of Syria, Egypt and (possibly) Turkey.

          To count on such support is not serious. Syria militarily can do little to help, especially at sea. Egypt receiving military assistance from the US? They even changed their minds after buying a fighter. Turkey is a country of NATO. Count on the help of Erdogan in the deployment of the base is not necessary.

          Even China, with its immeasurably greater ambitions, plans to create a full-fledged ocean fleet by the year 2050 (in 30 years). And this despite the fact that on the stocks they already have the 7th aircraft carrier.

          You probably mean a fleet equivalent to the American? So we do not plan to catch up with them in quantity. A fleet can be full with fewer ships. And this does not mean at all that you should not go far from your native coast.
          1. Bakht Offline
            Bakht (Bakhtiyar) 18 December 2019 17: 15
            +2
            • 2
            • 0
            The main problem of military construction is the definition of goals and objectives. Based on this, the state armed forces are being built. I mean the military doctrine.
            The plans of the Russian Federation for the next 10 years have no plans to expand its military presence in the world. This in the West can scare the layman with horror stories about the “Russian threat”. What is the real threat of a Russian attack on any NATO country today? The doctrine of the Russian Federation is defensive in nature with the possibility of causing unacceptable damage to the aggressor. Protection of the economic interests of state corporations (oligarchs) is not spelled out anywhere. So I do not believe that the RF Armed Forces can be involved in protecting economic interests, for example, in Africa or Latin America.
            AUG is a purely offensive type of weapon. And it is not intended to protect its shores. BALs, Bastions and other systems do a great job of this. The gauges showed perfectly that they can cover the fields of Europe. And what will the Kuznetsovs do? Demonstrate a flag off the coast of Africa? When I talk about Syria, Turkey and Egypt, I did not mean their sun. I had in mind the presence of Russian military bases in these countries (Tartus and Khmeimin are already available). Under their cover and on their basis, the Russian AUG may be located in the Eastern Mediterranean. You can revive the 5th OPESK. But Tartus alone is not enough for this. In this case, the existence of Kuznetsov will be justified by the possibility of maintaining the flight crew of carrier-based aviation.
            The existence of Kuznetsov is necessary as a foundation for the future. Currently, its combat value is close to zero. Here everything is famously drowned by American aircraft carriers. Can Americans really drown Kuznetsov alone?
    3. pin_code Offline
      pin_code (Andrey 1974) 19 December 2019 11: 39
      0
      • 0
      • 0
      For the Syrian express you need ordinary ships flying the flag of the Navy. But not like UDC or BDK.
      1. Bakht Offline
        Bakht (Bakhtiyar) 19 December 2019 14: 49
        +1
        • 1
        • 0
        Ordinary ships are needed, of course .... But this is good in peacetime. I don’t know why at the General Staff of the Navy they didn’t guess it during the “Syrian express”, but drove the BDK, of which there are not so many of the entire Russian Navy. I even had to drive with the Pacific Fleet.
    4. The comment was deleted.
  4. Vasil K. Offline
    Vasil K. (Vasil K.) 18 December 2019 11: 46
    -1
    • 1
    • 2
    Yesterday mocked the day before yesterday! When the first aircraft carriers begin to sink, they will fly from the mines of the Minutmen and ... That's it! To everyone. They will be afraid to stop, that’s the main thing.
  5. steelmaker Offline
    steelmaker 18 December 2019 14: 13
    0
    • 0
    • 0
    I say: "First, POLICY, then the economy, the army, sports, under this policy." The main thing depends on the person what kind of policy will be.
    1. A.Lex Offline
      A.Lex (Secret information) 19 December 2019 19: 36
      0
      • 0
      • 0
      No, a steelworker, not politics, but an idea. Then ideology, and for all this is already politics (internal and external).
  6. Upmost Offline
    Upmost (Innocent) 18 December 2019 18: 20
    -2
    • 3
    • 5
    Quote: Arkharov
    usual hatchery from the author

    So the author here is a megagalactic cheer patriot in geometric progression.
    He doesn’t have an opus - the Americans are tearing their hair out of fear of the Russians.
    And not without reason - the amers have bases everywhere, and thousands of missiles on ships / submarines / airplanes / in land-based missile defense / air defense areas.
    The Russian Federation - a boat with three "Caliber" somewhere sailed, and undermined the sky - everything, the United States in a panic.
  7. Upmost Offline
    Upmost (Innocent) 18 December 2019 18: 25
    -2
    • 1
    • 3
    Quote: Vasil K.
    will fly from the mines

    Rather, Trident-2 and Tomahawks, Block-4.
  8. Upmost Offline
    Upmost (Innocent) 18 December 2019 18: 27
    -4
    • 0
    • 4
    Quote: Bakht
    In this case, the existence of Kuznetsov will be justified by the possibility of maintaining the flight crew of carrier-based aviation.

    There will soon be nothing left to save. Few had, and almost all lost.
  9. meandr51 Offline
    meandr51 (Andrei) 19 December 2019 12: 31
    +2
    • 2
    • 0
    There are strong doubts that the speed at the Zircon guidance site is more than 3 M. At a higher speed, the plasma interferes.