Can the Russian Navy pose a real threat to the US Navy


Negotiations between Russia and NATO on non-expansion of the bloc to the East have reached an impasse. Since "Putin's ultimatum" was not taken seriously by our Western partners, the question arose about the promised response of a military-technical nature, for which there is no specifics yet. From the lips of the Deputy Foreign Minister of the Russian Federation, Sergei Ryabkov, it was said that he, the answer, could be "through the Russian Navy." What are the options here?


Not rockets


Initially, when there were hints from above about the possibility of a repeat of the Caribbean Crisis, it was assumed that Russia could once again deploy its nuclear missiles in Cuba, as well as in Venezuela. Career diplomat Sergei Ryabkov did not directly either confirm or deny this, leaving journalists, bloggers and the jingoistically minded public with a wide space for conjecturing all sorts of "cunning plans".

Alas, you cannot step into the same river twice. The Russian Federation is far from the USSR, too much water has flowed under the bridge, and the Cubans themselves no longer need Russian nuclear missiles in Cuba. Havana is objectively interested in building constructive relations with the neighboring United States, which is why it is contraindicated for it to provoke Washington so openly. Our medium-range missiles are also not needed by Venezuela, which is a party to the agreement on the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons in Latin America. Theoretically, it is possible for a Russian military base, air force or naval base, to appear there on the island of Orchila, but for this, Caracas will first have to make appropriate changes to its Constitution. In detail about all this, we reasoned earlier.

And what then remains? How can the Russian Defense Ministry designate the US nuclear threat in their underbelly? How to make it so that not only military experts, but also ordinary American inhabitants, tense up, and their worried public opinion shakes the external policies White House in a more peaceful and constructive direction?

The myth of the "great land power"


The above-mentioned Deputy Foreign Minister Ryabkov was forced to make a clarification that retaliatory measures may not be through the Strategic Missile Forces, but already the Russian Navy:

The President of Russia has repeatedly spoken out, including on this topic, what measures can be taken, for example, in the line of the Russian Navy, if things go completely in the direction of provoking Russia and further strengthening military pressure on us from the United States.

Unfortunately, we will have to state that the Russian Navy today is not able to effectively fulfill the task of intimidating the "hegemon". After the collapse of the USSR, they actively and stubbornly imposed on us an openly sabotaging installation that Russia is exclusively a “great land power”, and it simply does not need a powerful navy capable of operating in the far sea and ocean zone. Allegedly, SSBNs are enough for nuclear deterrence, SSBNs for "killing aircraft carriers", as well as a "mosquito" fleet, consisting of corvettes, RTOs and frigates, to protect their coast. Why do we need cruisers, or, even more so, these aircraft carriers of yours, fu, do not.

Let's now see how we approached the potential Caribbean Crisis 2.

Let's start with the strong side of the Russian Navy, which is traditionally considered a submarine. Indeed, we have submarines, and quite a few, nuclear and diesel-electric, capable of carrying cruise and intercontinental ballistic missiles. But there are also problems. All our nuclear submarines are continuously monitored by the naval forces of the NATO bloc. The Russian surface fleet is still unable to ensure the guaranteed safe deployment of SSBNs in combat patrol areas.

But let's say the Kremlin decides to demonstrate its determination to use nuclear weapons by arranging large-scale exercises with Borei and other SSBNs. It should be borne in mind that the effect may be the opposite. The simultaneous mass deployment of SSBNs in the Pentagon may be considered preparations for a preventive nuclear strike, to which the United States will respond symmetrically by withdrawing all of its submarine missile carriers, as well as raising the remaining components of the "nuclear triad" on combat alert.

The degree of pre-war tension will rise radically, and then the "Caribbean Crisis-2" will be ensured. The question is whether we need it, and how to get out of it later. Could it not turn out that the man-made crisis will end not with NATO's withdrawal from Ukraine, but, on the contrary, with the deployment of American nuclear missiles there to "deter the aggressiveness of the Kremlin"?

But, for example, the task will be set not to frighten Washington with the real prospect of a nuclear war, but to meaningfully portray the military presence of Russia in the underbelly of the United States so that there are many beautiful photographs, videos and a flurry of analytical articles in the American military and near-military publications. What do we have for this here and now?

Unfortunately, very few. What has been built for the Russian Navy in recent decades, except for submarines? Small missile ships, corvettes and "semi-frigates" of project 11356, which are actually modernized patrol ships. Of the really good ones, it is necessary to mention the Project 23500 frigates, which have great potential, but so far only 3 of them have been built. Only they have a decent air defense system "Polyment-Redut", and will be able to operate in the far sea zone, and those built according to the modernized project 23500M - in the ocean. But, alas, all this is not the most immediate prospect. This "mosquito" fleet cannot be sent anywhere in the Caribbean.

Large surface ships suitable for such a task can be counted on the fingers of each of our fleets. In the Northern Fleet, this is the Peter the Great TARKR, which has long been in need of modernization. Soon it will be replaced by a fellow project "Admiral Nakhimov", which will be the most combat-ready Russian ship. Also, this is the Marshal Ustinov missile cruiser, two project 1155 BODs Vice-Admiral Kulakov and Severomorsk, the project 956 destroyer Admiral Ushakov and 2 fresh project 22350 frigates - Admiral Gorshkov and Admiral Kasatonov. That is, only 7 ships.

In the Pacific Ocean there is a Varyag missile cruiser, 2 BODs of project 1155 Admiral Tributs and Admiral Panteleev, turned into a frigate from the BOD of project 1155 Marshal Shaposhnikov and the destroyer Fast. We counted 5 ships. On the Black Sea, one can mention the colleague of the Varyag and Marshal Ustinov under the project missile cruiser Moskva, as well as three satisfied new frigates of project 11356: Admiral Grigorovich, Admiral Makarov and Admiral Essen, plus 2 patrol ships project 1135 "Okay" and "Inquisitive". A total of 6 more ships capable of going to the far sea zone.

And what can we do with all this goodness? Send all 7 surface ships of the Northern Fleet to the Atlantic to the East Coast of the United States, and 5 KTOF ships to the West Coast to conduct naval exercises? If you send everything, then who will then perform combat missions at home, and if less, it will look completely undignified. Collect from the pine forest KUG (ship strike group) from all fleets and send it to conduct maneuvers somewhere in the Caribbean? It is possible, but such events require careful preparation and preferably their own naval base or at least a PMT in the region.

So, what is next? Well, our ships will shoot at training targets there, they will conduct exercises to hunt submarines. What exactly will be the threat? The US Navy is totally superior in strike power to anything that the Russian Navy can put up and send to the American coast. One of the main problems of Russian surface ships is a weak air defense system, and this despite the fact that in which case they will have to fight at sea not with other enemy surface ships, but with its carrier-based aircraft. The Admiral Nakhimov will last the longest, but in a real clash with the AUG, our KUG simply has no chance of surviving. By the way, almost all ships of the Russian "mosquito fleet" were built with very weak air defense. Considering that the US Navy is built around the "far arm" of aircraft carriers, it is generally unclear with whom and how they are supposed to fight.

In general, without an escort of an aircraft carrier capable of covering a ship group from fighter attacks from the air, poking somewhere into a distant sea and ocean zone is a suicidal adventure. The Russian Navy is simply unable to perform real combat missions there, and our Western partners are well aware of this.

It is possible that the frankly wrecking attitude about Russia as an exclusively “land power” initially came from them in order to completely nullify our potential in the oceans. And, it must be admitted, they succeeded. We are now counting on our fingers 40-year-old Soviet-built ships and massively building a "trifle" that is absolutely defenseless against American and NATO aviation, we pray for the hypersonic Zircons, which in battle have nothing to aim at the target due to the lack of deck-based AWACS aircraft, and our aircraft carriers in general anathematized. Sailed.
  • Author:
  • Photos used: Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation
34 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Eduard Aplombov Offline Eduard Aplombov
    Eduard Aplombov (Eduard Aplombov) 18 January 2022 11: 53
    0
    there is a wise old proverb, time-tested - to fight not by number but by skill
    and personal opinion, you need to hit the enemy in vulnerable places and protect your vulnerable ones from the enemy based on what we have in service
    based on this, build a strategy and tactics of war
    no matter how much we would like, we will not have a super fleet in Russia for many reasons, mainly economic
    all potential goes into missiles and their means of delivery
    1. Marzhecki Offline Marzhecki
      Marzhecki (Sergei) 18 January 2022 12: 07
      -1
      Russia does not need a super fleet, but a sufficient balanced fleet. We cannot have military parity at sea with the United States, we do not need to build 12 AUGs, then the Americans will make 24, they can afford it.
      But the Russian Navy needs to have on each of its ocean fleets (Northern and KTOF) 2 aircraft carriers and at least 1 UDC, which will allow them to perform the widest range of tasks: covering SSBN deployment areas, hunting for enemy submarines, long-distance cruises as part of the AUG, etc. d. The country will be able to build 4 aircraft carriers, gradually. UDC has already begun, frigates are being built.
      It's just that without aircraft carriers, our surface fleet is flawed and unfit for combat. This is an objective reality.
      1. Eduard Aplombov Offline Eduard Aplombov
        Eduard Aplombov (Eduard Aplombov) 18 January 2022 12: 17
        0
        even after pushing, having built many more ships for a balanced fleet, the enemy (NATO) will increase its fleet and again twenty-five, again we will not have enough ships to balance, during this time new types of other weapons will be squandered, it is obvious that the military proceeds from the fact what is possible and necessary in the first place for the security of the country
        if I were a sultan, I would have everything I want in the fleet on land and space
        as long as we have what we can afford
        1. Marzhecki Offline Marzhecki
          Marzhecki (Sergei) 18 January 2022 12: 22
          0
          I repeat, I'm not talking about the ratio of the number of ships we have and the enemy, but about the balance between the ships available in the fleet. Weak naval air defense, the presence of powerful carrier-based aircraft from the enemy do not leave ours any chance of a word at all.
          Why, then, throw money at all on ships that are not tenants in the event of war?
          Without anti-aircraft cover for its carrier-based aircraft and without anti-submarine helicopters, the KUG simply will not be able to complete the tasks, without AWACS, the missiles you are talking about will not be able to receive data for target designation. Do you understand?
          One element is missing from the equation - a floating airfield with a fighter deck wing and helicopters. With its appearance, the picture changes dramatically for the better for the Russian Navy. Now it will be a one-sided beating, any naval officer will confirm this to you. With the advent of aircraft carriers with escort ships, the quality will change.
          1. sH, arK Offline sH, arK
            sH, arK 18 January 2022 12: 56
            0
            For submarines / nuclear submarines, air defense is secondary. The author does not understand that the aircraft carrier is therefore the first in the name of the AUG, which is 95% precisely a means of projecting forces onto the coast, and not a means of maintaining a database at sea! And the AUG order is primarily needed to protect the aircraft carrier, and the aircraft carrier itself is already on the sidelines here!
            The USA needs an aircraft carrier precisely because they are isolated from almost all potential theaters of interest to them, well, given that they consider the whole world to be like that :-)
            But for the projection of force based on the balance of interest - for example, to maintain one of the parties to the conflict, if there are close-parity forces between the parties, a much more serious UDC is more important, and a pinpoint strike can also be delivered from a frigate, a destroyer with missiles, the cost of such an impact in the end is even cheaper ! Yes, a massive strike will require other efforts, but even then it’s easier to first create an air force base and strike from it. A good example is the Iraqi company - both companies were broadcast on TV by journalists as naval ones, with the participation of the AUG, although in reality they caused no more than 3-5% damage. The main action was performed by aviation from ground airfields.
            Now we are not talking about creating a missile base in Cuba or Venezuela! It's not needed! It is enough to create an MTO point for, at most, a dozen diesel submarines armed with both Kalibr-type strike weapons with nuclear warheads and anti-ship weapons! A quiet boat plying on a very limited theater of operations can greatly complicate the actions of any warrant, and the use of difficult-to-intercept anti-ship missiles with a range of more than 500 km can make life very difficult.
            1. Marzhecki Offline Marzhecki
              Marzhecki (Sergei) 18 January 2022 13: 26
              -1
              For submarines / nuclear submarines, air defense is secondary. The author does not understand that the aircraft carrier is therefore the first in the name of the AUG, which is 95% precisely a means of projecting forces onto the coast, and not a means of maintaining a database at sea! And the AUG order is primarily needed to protect the aircraft carrier, and the aircraft carrier itself is already on the sidelines here!

              AUG can fight both against the coast and at sea. Covering the SSBN deployment area is one of the tasks, but not the only one.
              1. sH, arK Offline sH, arK
                sH, arK 18 January 2022 14: 00
                +3
                You think in terms of World War II :-) Then the plane was the long arm of the fleet! And he beat the battleship long before he approached the warrant! Then the aircraft carriers showed themselves in all their glory! And the battleships are dead!
                Now an aircraft carrier for a naval war is a carcass that needs to be protected! This is the target the enemy will attack first! These are thousands of corpses and billions of losses! Well, an example is CVN-78, the price (without R&D !!!) is $13 billion !!! The air wing and equipment on it - about another $ 10 billion !!!

                What gives this mountain? What is its combat stability ?! Yes, it is difficult to sink an empty one - however, 100 thousand tons! You just need to take into account how many planes there are with filled tanks, each with 4-5 tons! And each hang ammunition! And below-deck storage of one thousand tons of ammunition! And also a supply of jet fuel for 2-4 thousand tons!
                Hitting even one anti-ship missile with a 300 kg warhead is a disaster with a 95% probability! Why, read about Forrestal in Vietnam, what McCain did there with one of the lightest and weakest air-to-air missiles!

                And it’s stupid to use an aircraft carrier to cover the SSBNs !!! The strength of the submarine is not in cover, but in stealth !!! And our SSBNs cover the ice in the Arctic much better than any AUG! :-) And now it makes no sense for them to try to approach an extra thousand km to the coast of a potential enemy, even the Mace flies 8000 km! :-) I am silent about Sineva and Liner :-)

                No, an aircraft carrier is already a "carriage of the past." Yes, like battleships in the early 40s, they were considered kings, but the very first clashes with the PA showed that they were an excellent target!

                And this beast has no more chances! Yes, the warrant protects him, but no warrant will protect him from being hit by even one 949 boat! And from a pair of such boats the skiff will come to the whole order!

                Zs: and about the effectiveness of air defense against anti-ship missiles - so far you can only see the results of the war for the Falklands - how many Exocets did Argentina have in total? And what are those rockets? And with all that, what damage did they do?! I’ll leave aside the failures of the Argentine aviation, when the bombs did not explode when they hit the ship, and the GOS of the Exocets were shot down using curtains of cut foil ...
                1. Marzhecki Offline Marzhecki
                  Marzhecki (Sergei) 18 January 2022 14: 43
                  -2
                  Now an aircraft carrier for a naval war is a carcass that needs to be protected! This is the target the enemy will attack first! These are thousands of corpses and billions of losses! Well, an example is CVN-78, the price (without R&D !!!) is $13 billion !!! The air wing and equipment on it - about another $ 10 billion !!!

                  No one is suggesting building an analogue of Ford. A modernized version of Ulyanovsk is enough. The lead ship of the series is always the most expensive, then the price goes down.

                  What gives this mountain? What is its combat stability ?! Yes, it is difficult to sink an empty one - however, 100 thousand tons! You just need to take into account how many planes there are with filled tanks, each with 4-5 tons! And each hang ammunition! And below-deck storage of one thousand tons of ammunition! And also a supply of jet fuel for 2-4 thousand tons!

                  What is the combat stability of the KUG without air wing cover from a raid by AUG carrier-based aircraft? How many air-based missiles do you need to sink our BOD or Project 22350 frigate?

                  And it’s stupid to use an aircraft carrier to cover the SSBNs !!! The strength of the submarine is not in cover, but in stealth !!! And our SSBNs cover the ice in the Arctic much better than any AUG! :-)

                  SSBNs operate not only in the Arctic. And do not forget that the process of active melting of polar ice is underway. In 20-30 years, the Arctic will not be so Arctic.

                  And this beast has no more chances! Yes, the warrant protects him, but no warrant will protect him from being hit by even one 949 boat! And from a pair of such boats the skiff will come to the whole order!

                  It depends on who will nullify who first. You make everything very easy.

                  No, an aircraft carrier is already a "carriage of the past." Yes, like battleships in the early 40s, they were considered kings, but the very first clashes with the PA showed that they were an excellent target!

                  You still need to get into the aircraft carrier of the Kyrgyz Republic, and for this you need data from the control center.

                  Zs: and about the effectiveness of air defense against anti-ship missiles - so far you can only see the results of the war for the Falklands - how many Exocets did Argentina have in total? And what are those rockets? And with all that, what damage did they do?!

                  It is more important here not to let enemy aircraft near your KUG / AUG at all. For this, in particular, "Ulyanovsk" was built as an air defense aircraft carrier.

                  I’ll leave aside the failures of the Argentine aviation, when the bombs did not explode when they hit the ship, and the GOS of the Exocets were shot down using curtains of cut foil ...

                  It is hardly worth focusing on the Argentine Air Force. And is it worth thinking in terms of the war of the past, as you reproached me for the Second World War? smile
                  1. sH, arK Offline sH, arK
                    sH, arK 18 January 2022 16: 21
                    +1
                    Strange you reason ...
                    "Ulyanovsk", given that all R & D costs will not fall on it, and its displacement, which is not much inferior to the "Ford" (80 versus 100), will clearly be quite comparable to the "Ford" in terms of real costs. And the cost of the air wing - yes, our planes are 3 times cheaper, but ship-based will play for an increase here too! In total, well, instead of 20 billion, we get 10! The cost of maintenance and repairs - and the United States has a ship under repair (small, medium, capital) 30% of the time, and we will have all 50%! (We do not have a service flow, which means both time and money will be significantly greater!). We don’t even have normal mooring facilities, so when I was still connected with the service (but no longer on the nuclear submarine), “Kuzya” beat the engine hours in the firehouse on the beam of Murmansk ... He simply had nowhere to moor! So it is necessary to build moorings, equip, electricity, steam, water, sewerage ...
                    More ... On average, during the service, the ship spends 3-5 times more on maintenance than it costs! And so, let them throw another 50 billion on him in 50 years! And at least 3 such ships are needed, considering that one is always under repair, one is in maintenance, one is on watch! In total, we spend only 3 billion on them a year! The cost of Boreas or Ash! I don’t even remember about “mine”, 667! :-)

                    And what do we have with such a goose ?! Yes - NOTHING, actually!!! One active aircraft carrier, this is the maximum strike power of 1/10 from a Khmeimim-type base! But in reality, so is 1/20 for "happiness"! Well, okay, when there is nowhere to go ... But where do we go? In Mali or the Central African Republic, will it somehow help us ?! Or maybe in Libya? So there, at Hawtor, we can do much, much more! Well, if we want, of course! We just don't want anything...

                    Now, as for the use - if following the nuclear submarine is really a huge crap, then what's the problem with the AUG? And what is the problem for us to create an analogue of "Legend"? Yes, it actually exists - ICRC "Liana" ... Yes, they can be intercepted, and I think that GBI is primarily designed for such interceptions. But any AUG should come ashore, at least 200-300 km, and here it will be visible at a glance ... And here they will arrange Pearl Harbor for it! Yes, bantustan can be hollowed out directly by entering their port, but in reality with a strong enemy ?! Fuck it there! Even to North Korea or Iran - countries that have at least a small, but their own submarine fleet (North Korea has a huge, albeit primitive submarine fleet!) And an arsenal of air defense and anti-ship missiles are guaranteed to be protected from all such threats!

                    Well, about ice and "global warming" - I would not even count on such nonsense, because pack ice, if instead of 3 meters it becomes meter long, it will not change much! Yes, the polynya will be larger, well, let's go up 100 miles closer to the North - and everything will be fine! And most importantly, it’s easy and close from us there, and Sivulf or Virginia still have to cut and cut to the point of interception! You look at the map! And there are enough hunters for them! Yes, to us, for SSBNs, it is generally possible to launch missiles from the White Sea! Who will go there? Where is the depth of 70-80 meters?! We know how and where - and they ?!

                    PS: The example of Argentina is an example of a country that is very weak in all respects, and even at the same time it showed how much more difficult it is to wage war even on one of the strongest maritime powers at that time far from its coast! This despite the fact that Argentina did not wage war on its own shore! And then I will say that Britain is very lucky there in many ways! And the whole fleet then went to those islands and was "on the verge"! And a couple of 641 diesel engines, if they had been in Argentina then, would have put an end to a completely different place!
                    1. Marzhecki Offline Marzhecki
                      Marzhecki (Sergei) 18 January 2022 16: 44
                      -3
                      Liana is not completed. Her satellites will be shot down first. Khmeimim cannot be taken with you to the far sea zone. Did we start with this? And, of course, you need infrastructure. For the same UDC. I understand that you, as a submariner, do not favor the surface fleet
                      1. sH, arK Offline sH, arK
                        sH, arK 18 January 2022 22: 47
                        +2
                        Liana - formally ready! Last year... Yes, 80% functionality. A couple more satellites - and 100%. Shoot down satellites? No doubt, but SM-3 Block IIB, the newest ones, do not reach Liana! It is 900 km circular! Is that the GBI - get it, can! But only some satellites, obviously not in all orbits! Considering GBI base locations. Again - the destruction of the satellite, as far as I remember, this is already a global phase of the war, not a local one! The answer is the simplest - all KN-11,12 will fly from orbit, each costing $ 4-8 billion, after which the whole concept of the US Army / Navy war starts "from the stove." A good exchange, I think ;)) So I don't think so... And it's much easier to shoot down the KN! ;) But the main problem is that we will lose the AUG in the ocean - but they need to get close to the shore! Otherwise, they won't make it! And anti-ship missiles will fly! Not a fountain?! And finding a large squadron 1000 km away is several orders of magnitude easier than a scout! What radio silence do not do! No, not an option!

                        And what about Khmeimim to us in the far zone ?! We have a projection of force on the US coast from the sea - there is no point in trying! To do this, we have the Strategic Missile Forces and SSBNs! We have never considered other options and are not considering! We need to protect our own, our own, well, the neighbors whom we bestowed with our warmth and kindness to order under the commies - why the hell are we in the "wild" far zone ?! We will not go to Australia ... We will only go where we will be called by those who will argue with adversaries there, and we will want to support them! We will consider virtual options - we definitely won’t have enough strength! Even the USSR did not suffer from such foolishness (it really had enough other foolishness!)

                        We do not need to carry anything to the far zone! Airfield, yes! And the surface fleet is a necessary and useful thing, but within reasonable limits and considering the wallet! It is necessary to have an understanding of what and how much it costs, otherwise they will begin "perestroika" again! Hungry people will not spare their power!
                    2. Marzhecki Offline Marzhecki
                      Marzhecki (Sergei) 18 January 2022 17: 19
                      -1
                      Strange you reason ...
                      "Ulyanovsk", given that all R & D costs will not fall on it, and its displacement, which is not much inferior to the "Ford" (80 versus 100), will clearly be quite comparable to the "Ford" in terms of real costs. And the cost of the air wing - yes, our planes are 3 times cheaper, but ship-based will play for an increase here too! In total, well, instead of 20 billion, we get 10!

                      Where are these numbers from?

                      The construction of a new aircraft carrier could cost Russia 500 billion rubles. The Military-Industrial Commission of Russia as part of the preparation of a new state armament program for the period from 2024 to 2033. will consider the feasibility of including plans for its construction, said Vladimir Pospelov, a member of the Board of the Naval Industrial Commission of Russia (VPK), a member of the Marine Board under the government.

                      “In the near future, as part of the preparation of a new SAP, it is necessary to assess the feasibility of creating aircraft carriers and their cost. In theory, the Navy needs three such ships - the lead and two serial ones, ”he said (quoted by RIA Novosti).

                      Calling the approximate cost of building an aircraft carrier, Pospelov did not rule out that when creating ships of this magnitude, there is a risk of an increase in cost during construction. According to him, the Russian aircraft carrier should be cheaper than American ships of a similar class, "but also a little smaller." We are talking about a displacement of at least 70-80 thousand tons against 110 thousand tons for US Navy ships.

                      Am I talking weird? By the way, hasn't all R&D already been carried out for the same Ulyanovsk, if we take it as a basis?

                      And what do we have with such a goose ?! Yes - NOTHING, actually!!! One active aircraft carrier, this is the maximum strike power of 1/10 from a Khmeimim-type base! But in reality, so is 1/20 for "happiness"! Well, okay, when there is nowhere to go ... But where do we go? In Mali or the Central African Republic, will it somehow help us ?! Or maybe in Libya? So there, at Hawtor, we can do much, much more! Well, if we want, of course! We just don't want anything...

                      We kind of started with the anti-aircraft and anti-submarine cover of the KUG in the DMZ. Please describe exactly how you would cover our ship grouping somewhere in the Caribbean against an AUG air attack. Based on the forces available in the Russian Navy.
                      1. sH, arK Offline sH, arK
                        sH, arK 18 January 2022 23: 11
                        +1
                        I'll start from the end - the air defense aircraft carrier began where it ended - during WWII! Everyone, time is up! A plane against a rocket - the idea is "so-so"! A plane against another plane, provided that it launches a rocket from 500 miles - also from the same opera! A KUG cover?! And where are we going with KUG?! And why?! Fuck someone - there are 949, 885 boats - crept up, fucked! Why is KUG there? In the days of the USSR, there was also a KPUG - but we have a completely different concept, and we even abandoned the doctrine of "non-use first" a long time ago!
                        Our KUG has nothing to do in the Caribbean! Or send transports with UDC with bandits to sort it out, and fight there - only SSBNs from under the ice cap and across all states at once! There are no other drugs and there is no point in them - this is "fuflomycin"! Or, if we climb, then as honest people, help good, or we don’t climb at all! And to fight there with Uncle Sam - excuse me, it's just stupid to even try! Chances - ZERO!

                        As for the conditional "Ulyanovsk" - the project is already 40 years old there at lunchtime, and it was 20% ready before cutting! R&D on it needs to be started from scratch! They themselves brought that 500 billion is needed for the construction of ONE! SO this USC says, and this must be multiplied by 2, or even by 3 at once!
                        And also an air wing?! Here's what I underestimated! 10 billion and will not manage! And you need 3 such ships !!! And that will be another "DeGol" erratic! Just laugh ... No, we can't afford the AUG! Yes, and there are no tasks for it! Air defense aircraft carrier - bullshit in general! Impact - yes, you can think of another reason ... But it's easier to get by with what is simpler, more efficient, versatile and cheaper! And we don’t have KUG why! If, for example, Uncle Sam fights in Venezuela, then this is the mirror image of the same thing as if he climbs here, into Durkaina, we will quickly show where the crayfish hibernate in the Black Sea! And to us in the Caribbean, he, like two fingers, will show the same thing! So there’s nothing for us to climb there even with the 5th AUG, even if we had them!
            2. Volkonsky Offline Volkonsky
              Volkonsky (Vladimir) 18 January 2022 16: 13
              0
              You speak very well, Comrade. Shark, I would like to know your opinion about the AWACS aircraft, the absence of which the author complains about when aiming our Zircons at the target, I think that Zircons are not needed when hitting the coastal infrastructure of the AWACS - I see the target, I see no obstacles, the GOS will do everything itself, and the coordinates of the target are laid down on board the nuclear submarine
              and another question - do you have anything to do with comrade BlackShark with GA? there is one ultra-class military specialist, an active military man with big stars
              1. Marzhecki Offline Marzhecki
                Marzhecki (Sergei) 18 January 2022 17: 22
                0
                Zircon is an anti-ship missile designed to target ships that can move through space at up to 30 knots. To get into it from a long distance, it is necessary to give it operational target designation data.
                There is no problem to hit a stationary target. But Zirkon is not equipped with a special warhead, it is just a very fast anti-ship missile.
              2. sH, arK Offline sH, arK
                sH, arK 18 January 2022 23: 42
                +2
                Let's all share the concept of AWACS and reconnaissance and target designation! AWACS already from the name implies precise target designation, distribution and control! When hitting the AUG, this is not necessary! An on-duty nuclear submarine or a fishing seiner catching pike in the ocean, having heard the progress of the order, and there at least 20-30 ships going at full steam, at least 20 knots, roaring 100 miles around, immediately knocks on the General Staff of the Navy, and there, they are already sending Liana or Tu-142, or whatever is nearby ... Even a civilian liner can. Everything. Found, fixed, made a decision. Next is escort. The withdrawal of the strike group on the target. If it's already a war, then that's it. Then it's just going to attack. No AWACS nafig needed! AWACS needs the AUG air group to find all the scows in the sea, bypass them if possible, drown if it’s more convenient, monitor the sky, and what if there is a Tu-142 somewhere, close - send, shoot down, far - well, warn your own ... Well, of course when working along the coast, AWACS is already working there constantly - detection, selection, target designation, control. But this AUG needs to approach the coast for 200 miles, a maximum of 300! No other way! Miracles do not happen! When there are savages on the shore, even advanced ones - like Ukrainians, then everything is OK, it works! But if the enemy is like China or Russia, then alas, AWACS is in the ass, according to his radar they will burn him 300 miles before he sees something! The order will be known much earlier! Dia and the order will go in complete radio silence! It glows 100% will not want! At first, it will stretch for 100 miles, the nuclear submarine and the destroyer will go to the forefront ... The nuclear submarine will also go in the rearguard ... There, everyone will no longer be joking ... How and who is lucky, how someone's chip will fall ...
          2. bobba94 Offline bobba94
            bobba94 (Vladimir) 18 January 2022 20: 08
            -1
            We are not talking about the ratio of the number of ships, but about the balance between the available ships ...... Masterpiece! Like, definitely.
  2. Sergey Latyshev Offline Sergey Latyshev
    Sergey Latyshev (Serge) 18 January 2022 12: 35
    0
    It's all right. And now he can’t, and before he couldn’t especially.
    It's all about the economy and money. There is no strong economy, no strong maritime trade - in need of protection, no capacities and technologies for construction and no money - so we are building a trifle that will fire Caliber at enemies from under the coast. (they will fight off the helicopters and the landing group, okay)

    Which is right so far.

    And the yachts of the "Abramovichs" are armed and will also fight back
    1. Marzhecki Offline Marzhecki
      Marzhecki (Sergei) 18 January 2022 12: 46
      -3
      It's all about the economy and money. There is no strong economy, no strong maritime trade - in need of protection, no capacity and technology for construction and no money

      The country has both money and technology, even capacities can be found. If you build light aircraft carriers, then you can after the UDC on the Gulf in Kerch. Heavy aircraft carriers can be laid down at Sevmash after the nuclear submarine.
      It is much smarter to invest in the construction of a new shipyard capable of building ships of this class, both military and civilian. These are jobs and taxes. This is the development of the economy you are talking about. Do you know how many industry orders will be provided for the next 20-30 years if a series of 4 aircraft carriers is ordered?
      After all, this is an investment not only in defense, it is an investment in your country. Why does no one want to understand this?

      so we build a trifle, which from under the shore will fire at enemies with Caliber. (they will fight off the helicopters and the landing group, okay)

      I will quote Edward

      there is a wise old proverb, time-tested - to fight not by number but by skill
      and personal opinion, you need to hit the enemy in vulnerable places and protect your vulnerable ones from the enemy based on what we have in service
      based on this, build a strategy and tactics of war

      So the enemy will hit in weak spots. There is no air defense on ships, so they will be the first to be sunk by aircraft ... Caliber carriers in the Baltic can generally be sunk with large-caliber artillery from Poland, right at the pier.
      1. Sergey Latyshev Offline Sergey Latyshev
        Sergey Latyshev (Serge) 18 January 2022 16: 09
        -1
        Taki cannot be found. They wrote about capacities and technologies on specialized sites. (Kuznetsov, fires, floating docks from Turkey, tanker modules from Korea)
        And money ... In vain, instead of the promised 2000 armats (at least 5 million green each), they simply updated the existing T72 and T80 (millenn each), and then the quantity and quality declared at the beginning were cut.

        And - "fight not by numbers, but by skill" - just the right skill - from bay to bay, right there coastal air defense systems will cover you, aviation, Caliber transport will give you a lift, and they shoot through all the local seas.
        On small ones, you can train the crew, and work out technologies, and engines, logistics, control and communications.
        What previously all countries did on small ships.

        And it’s not so pitiful if a crane suddenly falls, a cargo truck rams or a long-term construction under the stomach.
        1. Marzhecki Offline Marzhecki
          Marzhecki (Sergei) 18 January 2022 16: 13
          -1
          It seems that the topic is a distant sea zone, and not sit in your own bay. And without a fleet there will be no problems at all
          1. Sergey Latyshev Offline Sergey Latyshev
            Sergey Latyshev (Serge) 18 January 2022 16: 22
            -1
            Before you start doing for the "far sea zone", according to your mind, you need to make support, coastal zone and escort vessels.

            The first ones have already reported, and they handed over and are doing it, the second one too, the third ones have also started.
            So gain experience, saturate, and only then .... Or buy from the Chinese - they take about a dozen at once ... interesting pictures on VO.

            And then, for our models of aircraft carriers, the developers sometimes forget to stick the pipe ....
  3. Cat Offline Cat
    Cat (Sergei) 18 January 2022 12: 51
    +1
    Well, yes ... that's right, we don't have an ocean fleet. However, as in most countries of the world. Now only two fleets can exert "presence pressure", these are the US and Chinese navies. At least with its ship composition. In particular, the United States can put up (theoretically) a dozen AUGs. Each has AB and 5-6 EM and CR escorts with a hundred MK-41 cells on each. At the same time, strike functions for working against the coast will be performed not from fifty F-18s, but several hundred "Tamahawks" that will be on escort ships. Since the air defense functions will be performed by the AB, due to which the number of missiles on escort ships can be minimal, and SLCMs maximum. So it’s not their ABs that are scary, but their EM and KR escorts, carriers of Tomahawks SLCMs. Having fired 300-400 SLCMs within a few minutes ... no regional air defense can withstand such a salvo. And the enemy's PA will go into this gap. Therefore, an island like the United States will certainly be threatened by the threat of a massive SLCM strike. To do this, we would need to have three groupings of our AUGs, (similar to American ones), one in the Caribbean, the second in the Atlantic Ocean, and the third in the Pacific Ocean. So for this, at least 6 ABs of the Kuznetsov type would be needed, on which fifty KR cells can also be placed. Well, 50-60 BNK of EM dimension with a hundred cells on each. Or "arsenal ships" with several hundred SLCMs on each. It remains for little, to understand that without a fleet we will not protect the country. Well, build a FLEET. What is China doing so well now?
    1. sH, arK Offline sH, arK
      sH, arK 18 January 2022 13: 34
      +1
      You are mixing concepts. KR strike - always point! Specific. Given their radius of destruction, it is quite possible for them to inflict, in fact, a strategic strike, if the theater of operations is not of a global nature. For a small country - they are quite enough. The PA is already being used as a means of exerting further pressure, more political and emotional than real. Yes, in the end, the modern PA does not strike with free-falling bombs. What then is the point of using it? The cost of delivering a kilogram of warhead to the target for the KR is now even less than for the PA! And the lengthening of the range was still topical 20-30 years ago, but now what's the point in it ?!
      An aircraft carrier is already a "carriage of the past". And with the advent of hypersonic anti-ship missiles, this became quite obvious! And the power of the AUG now, and even earlier, remained purely political!
      Even during the Vietnam War, anti-ship missiles already existed! But for some reason, the USSR never supplied them to the Viet Cong, although air defense and fighter aircraft - please! And what prevented then, in the early 70s, from putting at least the same Foxtrots (641 projects) there, which were already in line for decommissioning ?!
      The answer is simple - there were tacit agreements. The bank does not sell seeds, Moishe does not lend! :-)
  4. Marzhecki Offline Marzhecki
    Marzhecki (Sergei) 18 January 2022 13: 28
    0
    Quote: Cat
    To do this, we would need to have three groupings of our AUGs, (similar to American ones), one in the Caribbean, the second in the Atlantic Ocean, and the third in the Pacific Ocean. So for this, at least 6 ABs of the Kuznetsov type would be needed, on which fifty KR cells can also be placed. Well, 50-60 BNK of EM dimension with a hundred cells on each. Or "arsenal ships" with several hundred SLCMs on each. It remains for little, to understand that without a fleet we will not protect the country. Well, build a FLEET. What is China doing so well now?

    Rather, not "Kuznetsov", but "Ulyanovsk". Everything has long been invented before us.
    And, to be honest, I'm just infuriated by stories about Russia's exceptional landmass.
  5. baltika3 Offline baltika3
    baltika3 (baltika3) 18 January 2022 13: 39
    -1
    Can the Russian Navy pose a real threat to the US Navy

    Of course it can. A few years ago, a Russian steamer nearly boarded an American, which barely managed to dodge at the last moment.
  6. Marzhecki Offline Marzhecki
    Marzhecki (Sergei) 18 January 2022 13: 40
    0
    Quote: sH, arK
    KR strike - always point! Specific. Given their radius of destruction, it is quite possible for them to inflict, in fact, a strategic strike, if the theater of operations is not of a global nature. For a small country - they are quite enough. The PA is already being used as a means of exerting further pressure, more political and emotional than real. Yes, in the end, the modern PA does not strike with free-falling bombs. What then is the point of using it? The cost of delivering a kilogram of warhead to the target for the KR is now even less than for the PA!

    Having fired cruise missiles, EM and CR will need to reload the cells. Where? On the base? The aircraft can simply return to the deck and replenish ammunition.
    The AUG is good because it can act at will, demolishing both the coast and the enemy fleet. A truly multifunctional tool.
  7. Marzhecki Offline Marzhecki
    Marzhecki (Sergei) 18 January 2022 16: 24
    -2
    Quote: Sergey Latyshev
    Before you start doing for the "far sea zone", according to your mind, you need to make support, coastal zone and escort vessels.

    The first ones have already reported, and they handed over and are doing it, the second one too, the third ones have also started.
    So gain experience, saturate, and only then .... Or buy from the Chinese - they take about a dozen at once ... interesting pictures on VO.

    And then, for our models of aircraft carriers, the developers sometimes forget to stick the pipe ....

    In my mind, this can be done in parallel. Avik will be built for 15 years, the second for 10 years. Expenses are high, but will be distributed over a long period. Everything is solved. The main thing is to understand what is being done and why.
  8. antibi0tikk Offline antibi0tikk
    antibi0tikk (Sergei) 19 January 2022 01: 08
    0
    Kapets you are frozen here! As if this is a site like a naval messenger, and not political affairs. But it was very interesting! And Shark, and Sergei Marzhetsky - respect!
    KUG campaign, missile strike, etc. - It's certainly spectacular!
    Only I have such a feeling that our Darkest One has something more interesting in store.
    Bombed by Poseidon closer to the western coast of America, only so that some kind of island is formed, small, 10x15 kilometers. A barge with Tajiks will immediately moor to it, we are quickly building Shaurmania and declaring this new island the territory of the Russian Federation! And now, after that, we are building a Pyaterochka chain of stores, wildberry, a traffic police post, a branch of the Russian Post and Sberbank, a naval and air base.
    Joke, of course!
    I myself am waiting with interest that we will respond to the refusal of the United States to our proposals. Wait and see.
  9. The comment was deleted.
  10. Bulanov Offline Bulanov
    Bulanov (Vladimir) 19 January 2022 13: 33
    0
    Instead of building several AUGs, it is enough for Russia to build and launch a pair of Buranovs with weapons on board. This is definitely not a single Navy can withstand! The technology is there. Pull up and the near space of the planet in your pocket!
    1. Marzhecki Offline Marzhecki
      Marzhecki (Sergei) 20 January 2022 07: 57
      -1
      Unmanned X-37s will already be waiting there for Burana
  11. Valera75 Offline Valera75
    Valera75 (Valery) 19 January 2022 20: 11
    +1
    Quote: antibi0tikk
    Only I have such a feeling that our Darkest One has something more interesting in store.

    Maybe I'm naive, but I also believe that what Russia has in store for such a case will cover any trump card in the enemy's deck.
  12. Nadys message was by Russia 24 that the Cuban parliament approved the entry of Cuba into the CSTO. So how else can you put rockets!
  13. Sapsan136 Offline Sapsan136
    Sapsan136 (Alexander) 26 January 2022 09: 05
    +1
    I don’t think that a warship equipped with S-300 air defense systems (aka Fort air defense systems) can be called a ship with a weak air defense system. At Nakhimov, they even promised to supply a marine version of the S-400 air defense system (we'll wait and see what they will deliver). On frigates, 22350 air defense was brought to mind. Frigates 11356 also have a quite decent Shtil air defense system, with a range of 40 km. In the Baltic there is a relatively fresh frigate Yaroslav the Wise, air defense is self-defense there, but as an anti-submarine ship, it, with its Vodopad rocket-torpedoes, is quite so ... The engines on corvettes (in the west they are rightly considered small URO frigates) 20380 also brought to mind and they are going to be sent to exercises in the Atlantic ... air defense on them is self-defense, but ... if doubts were expressed in bringing the air defense to the mind on project 20385, then at 20380 in the exercises, the Redoubt air defense system worked quite successfully on an air target ..... Of course, surface ships, and even more so if it is an AUG, escort nuclear submarines and without a doubt, if the Russian Federation sends its squadron, it will, at a minimum, be escorted by all available nuclear submarines of the Yasen type ... So a collision with the Yankee fleet of the Russian Federation does not bode well good ... the Russian Federation is not Yugoslavia ...