How the amphibious fleet could influence the course of the Russian NVO in Ukraine

January 3 2023 60

After the collapse of the USSR, one of the main frankly wrecking attitudes, stubbornly and consistently introduced into the minds of Russians, was the assertion that our country is an exclusively continental power, which does not particularly need a fleet. However, the events of the past eight years have proved the complete inconsistency of such insinuations.

NWO lessons

In 2015, Russia entered the Syrian campaign on the side of official Damascus, and suddenly it turned out that we needed a fleet to regularly supply a military group in the SAR. As a result, any rusty vessel capable of staying afloat had to be involved in the "Syrian Express". He played his role of the Russian Navy before the start of the special operation in Ukraine. The most combat-ready surface ships, including the Atlantes, created in the USSR specifically to fight aircraft carriers, to deter the US Navy and the NATO bloc, were driven into the Mediterranean Sea from all fleets. In the Black Sea, in parallel with this, they assembled the largest grouping of 12 large landing ships from three fleets at once, which, presumably, were supposed to carry out a landing operation near Odessa. Ships and submarines of the Black Sea Fleet most actively supported and continue to support the implementation of the NMD in Ukraine with cruise missile strikes.

A strong surface fleet is needed to protect the Kuril Islands from possible encroachments of the Japanese militarists, as well as to cover the deployment of strategic submarine missile carriers. The importance of the fleet, merchant and naval for its protection, has increased even more after some "unidentified attackers" undermined the Nord Stream and Nord Stream-2 underwater gas pipelines. The transition of the geopolitical opponents of our country to the tactics of infrastructure war objectively raised the importance of maritime trade to a previously unthinkable level. It turned out that the Russian Navy is still needed, and the painful losses it suffered clearly demonstrated numerous systemic problems.

In this publication, I would like to review in general terms the development trends and problems of the Russian amphibious fleet.

"Unnecessary" UDC

Since 2014, when the talk turned to a possible direct war between Russia and Ukraine, the general consensus was that the main fighting would take place on land. And so it happened, however, the course of the current SVO could have taken a completely different path if the Russian Navy had managed to carry out a landing operation near Odessa in the first days.

It is believed that it did not work out because of a strong storm, which made the landing of the Russian marines in the Black Sea region impossible, and after that time was irretrievably lost. The Armed Forces of Ukraine mined all approaches to the coast, and our surface ships were targeted by the Neptunes. Now, going there from the sea will be a gamble with a guaranteed disastrous outcome. However, we repeat: had Odessa been taken on the move during the landing operation in the first days after the start of the NVO, everything could have turned out completely differently than what we have here and now. It should be noted that the interest of the Russian General Staff in universal amphibious assault ships manifested itself quite a long time ago.

In 2011, a contract was signed for the construction in France of two UDCs of the Mistral type with a total displacement of 21300 tons, each of which could transport 450 marines or 900 people with a certain degree of comfort, but for a short distance. The Mistral air group could consist of 16 heavy helicopters or 32 light ones. It was assumed that the French would build two ships to Russian requirements and standards, and then two more UDCs would be built entirely in our country under license. In other words, by now the Russian Navy should have had four universal assault helicopter carriers that could be used in the course of the NWO. However, things turned out differently.

After the Ukrainian Maidan in 2014 and the Crimean referendum, Paris, under pressure from Washington, “threw” Moscow with the Mistrals, and Egypt got the already built two UDCs. As a replacement for the French helicopter carriers, it was supposed to build at least two completely Russian UDC project 23900. The ships were laid down at the Zaliv plant in Kerch in 2020, and their commissioning is expected in 2027 and 2028, respectively.

According to updated data, the total displacement should be not 40000, but 30000 tons, landing capacity - from 900 to 1000 marines, air wing - up to 16 helicopters of various types, as well as several UAVs. Air defense will be provided by two Pantsir-M complexes. The main intrigue was what kind of power plant would be used in the first fully domestic UDC. Such powerful diesel engines for such large ships are not produced in Russia, so it was decided to use a combined diesel-gas turbine unit of the CODAG type: two DGTA-M55Rs with a capacity of 32 hp each. with. (diesel 700D10 "Kolomensky Zavod" 49 hp and 5200 hp gas turbine M27FR "Saturn"), two gearboxes RO500 PAO "Zvezda" and a local control system NPO "Aurora". The maximum cruising range of the UDC will be 90 nautical miles (55 km), and the maximum speed will be 6000 knots (11 km/h).

The first ship in the series, Ivan Rogov, will go to serve in the Pacific Ocean, the second, Mitrofan Moskalenko, will remain in the Black Sea. It is assumed that it is he who should become the future flagship of the Black Sea Fleet. It was built for the scheduled shift of the Moskva, but now it will have to replace the Admiral Makarov frigate, which unexpectedly became the flagship after the tragic death of the missile cruiser.

"Gren" to you

Another rather promising landing ship is the BDK of the modernized project 11711. The lead ship of the Ivan Gren series had many "childhood diseases", which led to a constant rise in cost and a delay in the construction process. However, the third and fourth BDK of this type, "Vladimir Andreev" and "Vasily Trushin", after the revision of the project, became much more attractive to the Russian Navy in terms of their tactical and technical characteristics.

At first, they have significantly increased in size and displacement, which makes it possible to attribute the BDK to the ships of the far sea zone. From 6600 tons of full displacement at Ivan Gren and Ivan Morgunov, it grew to 8000 tons, the length of the hull increased by 15 meters and reached 150, the width - 19,5 meters. This alone made it possible to increase the range and landing capacity from 300 to 400 marines, as well as to increase the number of transported equipment.

Secondly, there was a change in the superstructure, which was combined from two elements into one more massive, noticeably shifted forward. Due to this, it was possible to significantly increase the size of the helipad, which can accommodate either five Ka-27/Ka-29 or four Ka-52K helicopters. This dramatically expands the capabilities of the combat use of the BDK, which will now partly be able to perform the functions of an anti-submarine ship as part of the formation, using Ka-27PL helicopters. Four Ka-52K attack helicopters will be able to provide significant fire support during landing. Theoretically, rotorcraft armed with Kh-35U anti-ship missiles could also pose a threat to enemy surface ships.

De facto, the modernized ships of project 11711 "Vladimir Andreev" and "Vasily Trushin" will occupy an intermediate link between the BDK and UDC. It remains to be regretted that neither one nor the other was available at the right time and in the right place, where they could play their role. It remains to be hoped that the cruel lessons taught during the NWO will ultimately benefit the Russian Navy.

Sergey Marzhetsky
Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation

Our news channels

Subscribe and stay up to date with the latest news and the most important events of the day.

VK Zen Telegram

Information

Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.

Scharnhorst

+2

3 January 2023 12: 57

Just as our fleet did not need the Mistrals, so now the UDC pr.23900 is not needed. It was necessary to drive a series of initial 11711 to replace one by one the old tank landing ships pr.1171 and pr.775. Enough to produce "white elephants". Regarding the landing near Odessa. As the initial stage of the NMD showed, it was easier to force an unexpected throw across the Dnieper and the Bug along the bridges occupied by landing and special forces than to leave a marine brigade a hundred miles from the Crimea to the mercy of fate without a real possibility of replenishing and supplying the marine landing.
1. Sergey3939
  
  -3
  
  3 January 2023 13: 22
  
  As for UDC 23900, it's not for you to decide. They will just fit in, one at the Pacific Fleet, plus 2 modernized 11711 and one in the Eastern Mediterranean!
  The fleet is an expensive and long-term program. Taking into account the post-Soviet collapse of shipbuilding, and now both time and power and money!
  How much we are tormenting the program for the construction of 22350, it seems that they have begun to rake out, but for the modernized 22350M, only plans and plans until the boathouse is modernized !!!
  1. Vladimir1155
    
    +3
    
    4 January 2023 08: 50
    
    Quote: Sergey3939
    As for UDC 23900, it's not for you to decide. They will just fit in, one at the Pacific Fleet, plus 2 modernized 11711 and one in the Eastern Mediterranean!
    The fleet is an expensive and long-term program.
    
    fit in then fit in .... but why? the survival rate of a surface ship in the areas you indicated is zero, do you want to kill the sailors? and or do you want to destroy Russia by creating your senseless but expensive program to tear money away from satellites, UAVs, Krasnopoles, Iskanders, Aerospace Forces, SSBNs and strategic nuclear forces vital to our defense?
2. lord-palladore-11045
  
  0
  
  6 January 2023 01: 37
  
  You are a land man - how do you know the capabilities and strategic use of the fleet! You have only seen the sea from the shore.
ivan2022

+5

3 January 2023 13: 20

Maybe I know little about the affairs of the fleet, but the impression is that during the 20th century and to this day our fleet "became famous" only for powerful explosions that sank their own leading surface and underwater vessels.

And the heroism of the sailors who gave their lives so that, God forbid, there was no shot or shooting of something - where ... In short, only the reliability of technology and the great stupidity of the commanders are heard ...

Somehow, nothing is known, except for the great victories of the fleet, which thundered throughout the World in the 18th century ...... More than two centuries have passed since then.
1. Sergey3939
  
  -5
  
  3 January 2023 17: 25
  
  That's right, you don't understand! The era of sailing linear battles is long over!
  And for your knowledge of knowledge: We have submarine and surface ships!
  And, the ship will be laid in a hospital for bedridden patients! (((
  1. vlad127490
    
    +1
    
    3 January 2023 22: 14
    
    No need to scoff, warships, civilian ships. A military galosh is also called a ship. Citizens far from the sea - the ocean do not need to know this difference, as well as the fact that ships go by sea.
    1. Sergey3939
      
      0
      
      3 January 2023 23: 06
      
      And how to answer those who are trying to destroy Us and hide behind fireworks and blah-boa-blah! (((
2. Alexey Lan
  
  +2
  
  3 January 2023 21: 58
  
  All the same, our nuclear submarines play an important role in the confrontation with the United States. The role of the rest of the fleet is a question mark for me.
  1. Sergey3939
    
    0
    
    3 January 2023 22: 09
    
    The question is not a question, but for example in the Eastern Mediterranean, they have already created a naval base in Syria and naturally a detachment of ships relies on the naval base and plus the air force in Khmeimin! Yes, a detachment of ships based in the Mediterranean Sea is supported by nuclear submarines - it has always been!)))
  2. Alex widerker
    
    0
    
    8 January 2023 18: 03
    
    Yes, and nuclear submarines can play the same role as air defense when hitting strategic airfields. Who knows what state the fleet is in. Maybe it's time to collect money from the people as well as for your own?
Vladimir80

+6

3 January 2023 16: 27

Unfortunately, our fleet is just a continuation of our army - a lot of noise, a lot of big words and parades, but in fact the flagship sunk from one enemy missile. Therefore, all dreams about landing on ships must be immediately dismissed as harmful and dangerous. To begin with, it is necessary to launch reconnaissance satellites and establish communications among the troops. And do not waste energy and money on expensive iron posts that the enemy can easily send to the bottom.
1. zenion
  
  -1
  
  4 January 2023 17: 02
  
  You can easily land on the moon, and if you eat something that would have a lot of fuel, then even on Mars. And from there, fire watermelons, pumpkins and melons. Imagine the main military man walking in Kyiv, and a melon falls on his head and all its insides spread over his frightened face. And there, a Russian intelligence officer takes this picture and sends it to (in) the West and East. It's such a shame. And then a shot from the back, and the color of the back pants is brown. After a thorough washing in the Dnieper, a lot of fish died, it is sent back to the teater.
2. Alexey Lan
  
  0
  
  5 January 2023 00: 02
  
  Is it still possible to land near Odessa? This is what needs to be discussed. We have the same topic. In my opinion, a sofa expert, it is still possible. But for this it is necessary to send not a dozen ships, but a hundred and cover them with additional aircraft with electronic warfare, helicopters and everything possible. Obviously there will be losses. But the result of the operation is important. But, if, in the opinion of the General Staff, landing is not needed, then why are landing ships and cruisers on the Black Sea at all? From the Crimea, half of the sea is shelled from the shore with missiles even now, and this is cheaper than building large cruisers and frigates. Yes, and the radars on the Crimean mountains shine through the entire Black Sea puddle.
Sergey Latyshev

+1

3 January 2023 18: 15

It is clear that everything is needed. And it wouldn't hurt.
But since all the money was either stolen, or optimized, or withdrawn, or lowered to the show-offs of sports complexes and palaces, so far - small ships.
Which, hiding under the shore of the bay, will shoot through coastal waters with Calibers, just bring them up. And they will be able to fight back themselves from the DRG or an enemy helicopter ...
1. Sergey3939
  
  0
  
  3 January 2023 22: 11
  
  Drive to Kamchatka, to the "hornet's nest"! Where they set up the infrastructure for people's lives! And, the base is the best geographical place for the location of the nuclear submarine!)))
2. zenion
  
  -1
  
  4 January 2023 17: 04
  
  And to recruit, on their own grubs, gobies and a ram to the guards. Let them swim, coo and clog the brains of the enemy and the opposite.
DO

+3

3 January 2023 18: 44

It turned out that the Russian Navy is still needed

Is it worth considering this phrase of the author as a call to spend the huge resources of the Russian Federation, from the very modest ones available, for the mass construction of a new Navy? And specifically for SVO? For this purpose, having withdrawn resources from the organization of mass production of military UAVs, high-precision artillery (Krasnopol), electronic warfare systems, military satellites, anti-satellite weapons? With a critical lack of which, victory in the NMD is very difficult to achieve, and at the cost of prohibitive losses of soldiers and officers?

Ships and submarines of the Black Sea Fleet most actively supported and continue to support the implementation of the NMD in Ukraine with cruise missile strikes.

The RF Armed Forces launch cruise missiles (CR) at ground targets of Ukraine bordering the Russian Federation from ships and aircraft, only because of the long-term effect of the INF Treaty, for the execution of which Gorbachev ordered the destruction of Soviet ground-based launchers of the CD, but did not make new ones.
However, the INF Treaty has not been in force since 2019, and the production of the required number of ground-based launchers of the Kyrgyz Republic will cost orders of magnitude cheaper than the construction of new ships and submarines, with the intended purpose of surface / underwater carriers of launchers of the Kyrgyz Republic for purposes on land.

As a replacement for the French helicopter carriers, it was supposed to build at least two completely Russian Project 23900 UDCs. The ships were laid down at the Zaliv plant in Kerch in 2020 ...
...
The first ship in the series, Ivan Rogov, will go to serve in the Pacific Ocean, the second, Mitrofan Moskalenko, will remain in the Black Sea.

Yes, for hypothetical military operations around the Kuril Islands, both UDCs would be very useful. However, the question is, will the Turks release these warships from the Black Sea? Therefore, if we finish building the mentioned ships, then without much anguish.
By the way, the situation is similar with the warships of the St. Petersburg shipyards. For the NATO countries, which have almost already included Finland, can easily cut off the sea route from St. Petersburg to the world ocean in the event of an escalation.
Consequently, in the Far East, the Russian Navy will most likely be able to place its main hopes only on the products of other Russian shipyards.
1. Sergey3939
  
  0
  
  3 January 2023 21: 08
  
  While we build, we will break NATO in Ukraine !!!
  And according to the plan, they should be ready by 27-28!
  Building ships is expensive and time consuming! Only Gorshkov knew and moved under the USSR!
  And now we have been docked and are constantly being attacked! But, we stand and move, slowly but surely!)))
2. zenion
  
  -2
  
  4 January 2023 17: 07
  
  It is not clear why build a new fleet, if you can build the previous one. And call those names, as they were called before being handed over to waste paper and scrap metal.
Bakht

+1

3 January 2023 19: 29
It is believed that it did not work out because of a strong storm, which made the landing of the Russian marines in the Black Sea region impossible, and after that time was irretrievably lost.

According to archival data, the weather in Odessa on February 24, 2022 was +3 +5 degrees, wind 5-7 m/s. Not a storm at all.

The landing force near Gostomel had to be evacuated due to the impossibility of supplying it. The troops near Odessa would have to be evacuated in the same way.

An excursion into history. If the Germans in the First World War had built a couple of battleships less, and instead of them they would have riveted a couple of thousand trucks, they could have won the war.

The fleet is needed. He is being built. The situation in the world is such that, first of all, there is a great need for submarine missile carriers and ships that ensure their deployment. This is the task of number van. They are being built now.
1. Vladimir1155
  
  0
  
  4 January 2023 08: 44
  
  Quote: Bakht
  The landing force near Gostomel had to be evacuated due to the impossibility of supplying it. The troops near Odessa would have to be evacuated in the same way.
  
  An excursion into history. If the Germans in the First World War had built a couple of battleships less, and instead of them they would have riveted a couple of thousand trucks, they could have won the war.
  
  The fleet is needed. He is being built. The situation in the world is such that, first of all, there is a great need for submarine missile carriers and ships that ensure their deployment. This is the task of number van. They are being built now.
  
  true!
Sergey3939

-3

3 January 2023 21: 16

Well, here, as always, destroyers and those who want the defeat of Our state are sitting here!
Minus, all logical and correct debaters!
1. Vladimir80
  
  +3
  
  3 January 2023 21: 49
  
  yes, no one argues that a fleet is needed, we just don’t print money like the United States, and the fleet is the most expensive component of military power ... and now there are obvious gaps in more pressing things for our own (intelligence, communications, long-range missiles, UAVs) .. .
  1. Sergey3939
    
    +1
    
    3 January 2023 22: 15
    
    We are building a fleet, but slowly but surely!
    There are some positive results!
2. Sergey3939
  
  0
  
  3 January 2023 22: 14
  
  Ah, here is the answer!
vlad127490

+1

3 January 2023 22: 36

First you need to decide what you need, a BDK or a cruiser of the 1st rank? For example, during hostilities with Japan, the BDK will not reach Kunashir, it will be drowned. Do not confuse a supply ship with a BDK, supply ships were needed in the Syrian express. Where are you planning to land? We need ships of the 1st rank to have a permanent presence at the borders of the USA, Great Britain, France. When the missiles reach the United States in less than 5 minutes, the Yankees immediately become accommodating. In the Black Sea, a flagship of the 1st rank is needed for prestige, instead of Moscow, which the admirals intentionally drowned. For a peaceful life, Russia needs to have 10 ships of the 1st rank. The Russian Federation knows how to build frigates and corvettes.
1. DO
  
  +1
  
  3 January 2023 23: 17
  
  during hostilities with Japan, the BDK will not reach Kunashir, it will be drowned.
  
  In the event that Kunashir is captured by the Japanese, the only real way for the RF Armed Forces to liberate it is to cut off the invading enemy grouping from effective support and supply, by means of a landing on Hokkaido.
  
  We need ships of the 1st rank to have a permanent presence at the borders of the USA, Great Britain, France. When the missiles reach the United States in less than 5 minutes, the Yankees immediately become accommodating.
  
  In the event of an appropriate degree of escalation, the few Russian warships you mentioned, deprived of the support of the Russian coasts, will be guaranteed to be drowned by the many times superior enemy fleet with the support of its coastal systems, first of all.
  1. Vladimir1155
    
    -1
    
    4 January 2023 08: 34
    
    Quote: DO
    In the event of an appropriate degree of escalation, the few Russian warships you mentioned, deprived of the support of the Russian coasts, will be guaranteed to be drowned by the many times superior enemy fleet with the support of its coastal systems, first of all.
    
    done right!
  2. Vladimir1155
    
    +2
    
    4 January 2023 08: 36
    
    Quote: DO
    In the event that the Japanese capture Kunashir, the only real way for the RF Armed Forces
    
    it is to deliver nuclear strikes on Tokyo Osaka and a number of other Japanese agglomerations, all our fishing rods, when approaching the Kuriles, will be sunk like the Moscow cruiser by Japanese coastal missile systems
    1. DO
      
      -2
      
      4 January 2023 12: 13
      
      inflict nuclear strikes on Tokyo Osaka and a number of other Japanese agglomerations, all our fishing rods, when approaching the Kuriles, will be sunk like the Moscow cruiser by Japanese coastal missile systems
      
      But nuclear strikes on large Japanese cities will not help our landing force to liberate the Kuril Islands, because the coastal complexes in Hokkaido will not suffer from this in any way.
      And the United States, one way or another, will certainly organize a nuclear response, as it were, from the Japanese, in the Far Eastern cities of Russia. It is immediately clear that you do not live in the Far East :))
      1. Vladimir1155
        
        +1
        
        4 January 2023 16: 18
        
        if the United States wants to inflict nuclear strikes on the Russian Federation, then they will inevitably receive hundreds of nuclear hits on large agglomerations ... for the sake of smoking and the Japanese? I can’t believe that the Americans are so stupid, after delivering nuclear strikes on Tokyo, Japan will fall into chaos, and its landing will be left without supplies, and our submarines, which should be in Petropavlovsk, will begin to iron the Japanese landing, as they are now ironing the so-called Ukraine, together with the Aerospace Forces and Iskanders from Soviet harbor ... our landing will land ONLY after the suppression of all the forces of the Japanese in the Kuriles, people need to be protected
        
        DO
        
        0
        
        4 January 2023 21: 22
        
        if the United States wants to inflict nuclear strikes on the Russian Federation, then they will inevitably receive hundreds of nuclear hits on large agglomerations ... for the sake of smoking and the Japanese?
        
        If you are at least a little familiar with recent history, you might notice that the United States prefers to act by proxy. In this case, in response to Russian tactical nuclear strikes on Japan, the states will simply supply tactical nuclear missiles to Japan, or announce that they will (try to prove whose submarine fired).
        
        our landing will land ONLY after the suppression of all the forces of the Japanese in the Kuriles people need to be protected
        
        Who would argue, the Russians need to be protected, there are already too few of them. But the nuclear bombing of Japanese cities will lead to exactly the opposite result.
        The suppression of the enemy's forces and means must be done directly, by military methods, and not rely on a mess in the enemy's army after insane nuclear strikes on Japanese cities.
        
        DO
        
        0
        
        5 January 2023 00: 22
        
        vladimir1155 (vladimir), PS
        The Japanese have claims not only to the islands of the Kuril chain, but also to the southern part of Sakhalin. Therefore, if such a hypothetical mess begins, then the Japanese army will most likely hit Sakhalin as well.
        A Russian retaliatory strike against the military logistics routes of the Japanese army and other military facilities of Japan, located not only in Hokkaido, but also in the northern part of Honshu, will be natural.
        But with great probability, these will not be nuclear strikes, and not on civilian targets.
        It is to be hoped that the Japanese will have the wisdom not to commit suicide of their own state.
  3. Bakht
    
    +1
    
    4 January 2023 09: 39
    
    In the event that Kunashir is captured by the Japanese, the only real way for the RF Armed Forces to liberate it is to cut off the invading enemy grouping from effective support and supply, by means of a landing on Hokkaido.
    
    In the event of an appropriate degree of escalation, the few Russian warships you mentioned, deprived of the support of the Russian coasts, will be guaranteed to be drowned by the many times superior enemy fleet with the support of its coastal systems, first of all.
    
    Can this be linked somehow?
    1. DO
      
      -1
      
      4 January 2023 12: 16
      
      Can this be linked somehow?
      
      Think about your question while looking at the map.
      1. Bakht
        
        0
        
        4 January 2023 16: 16
        
        I looked and thought...
        How are you going to supply the troops in Hokkaido? A few Russian ships will be sunk. Are these your words?
        
        Now, of course, it is not 1945. But still the basics of landing operations have not changed. At one time, the Americans calculated that the landing on the Japanese islands would cost a million lives.
        
        DO
        
        0
        
        4 January 2023 21: 31
        
        I looked and thought...
        How are you going to supply the troops in Hokkaido? A few Russian ships will be sunk. Are these your words?
        
        Look at the map and you will see that the distance from Sakhalin to Hokkaido is fifty kilometers. That is, within reach not only of Russian missiles and aircraft, but also artillery, MLRS, UAVs.
        Or do you think that if the Kuriles are captured by the Japanese, it will be necessary to resign them to the Japanese?
        
        Bakht
        
        +1
        
        5 January 2023 11: 05
        
        Don't think for your opponent. Nobody is going to give anything away.
        
        And then compare the composition of the fleets of Japan and the Pacific Fleet. Add two American AUGs and coastal anti-missile systems in Hokkaido to the same place.
        Suppose you landed troops in Hokkaido. So, what is next? What will be the size of the landing force? What transports will supply this landing. Will the Japanese and Americans watch how the transports cross these very "fifty kilometers"?
        
        The entire Pacific Fleet will go to the bottom within a couple of days (surface ships). The remaining ships will be in the bases and it is not a fact that they will survive there. The fate of “Moscow” has taught you nothing.
        
        The same applies to the "capture of the Kuriles" by the Japanese. No ship or even formation can withstand the impact of fifty anti-ship missiles.
        
        The only task of the Pacific Fleet is a retaliatory nuclear strike in the event of a full-scale war. This requires submarine missile carriers and a near-field fleet to ensure their deployment.
        
        DO
        
        0
        
        5 January 2023 14: 59
        
        Bakht (Bakhtiyar),
        
        Add two AUG Americans there
        
        The Americans do not directly participate in the NWO in Ukraine. What makes you think they would risk nuclear escalation to satisfy Japanese ambitions?
        
        And then compare the composition of the fleets of Japan and the Pacific Fleet. ...
        ...
        The same applies to the "capture of the Kuriles" by the Japanese. No ship or even formation can withstand the impact of fifty anti-ship missiles.
        
        It is necessary to compare not only the Pacific Fleet and the Japanese fleet, but also those forces and means that are based on the shores and on land in general. In general, of course, the forces of Japan may be quite sufficient for a short-term partial success. But as for the outcome of a hypothetical conflict, I do not agree with your defeatist assessments. In addition, I do not want to develop this topic here, but apart from Russia, Japan has one more historical adversary.
        
        The only task of the Pacific Fleet is a retaliatory nuclear strike in the event of a full-scale war. This requires submarine missile carriers and a near-field fleet to ensure their deployment.
        
        Yes, the Pacific Fleet certainly has the task of a retaliatory nuclear strike. But why is this task the only one? Is it in the event of a hypothetical Japanese aggression against Russia, the Pacific Fleet should stand indifferently and watch how it happens?
        
        Suppose you landed troops in Hokkaido. So, what is next? What will be the size of the landing force?
        
        Ask this question to the General Staff. True, I doubt that you will answer :)))))
        
        Bakht
        
        0
        
        5 January 2023 20: 40
        
        What you wrote does not require a comment.
        The landing in Hokkaido was your idea. And, as you yourself said
        
        In the event of the capture of Kunashir by the Japanese, for the RF Armed Forces the only real way to free him is to cut off the invading enemy force from effective support and supply, by landing on Hokkaido.
        
        Why you sent me to the General Staff, I do not understand. Learn to be responsible for YOUR OWN words.
        
        The main and often occurring mistake of such "plans" is a complete detachment from reality. Either a separate type of aircraft, or a separate theater of operations, or even a separate operation is considered. The landing of Japanese troops on the Kuriles is possible only within the framework of a general thermonuclear war. And no separate landings will solve it.
        
        In terms of its combat capabilities, the Japanese fleet surpasses the Pacific Fleet in terms of the number and quality of surface ships. It is impossible to supply troops to Hokkaido. Plus coastal complexes. In general, a crazy idea. Even if there are two or three UDCs in the Pacific Fleet, they will be able to transfer 2-3 battalions. The second wave of landing is already a big question. And what will 2-3 battalions do on an enemy island without supplies?
        
        Yes, not to forget. Do not confuse God's gift with scrambled eggs. Ukraine and the Far East are two big differences. Japan will not take the islands by force. And the Americans do not hesitate to help them if necessary. Geopolitically, Japan is an unsinkable US aircraft carrier directed against China. And the States will not allow her defeat even under the threat of a thermonuclear war.
        
        DO
        
        0
        
        6 January 2023 17: 11
        
        Why you sent me to the General Staff, I do not understand.
        
        And you want me here to develop a plan for a hypothetical military operation with all the details - how and from where to bomb the Japanese army in Hokkaido and Honshu and their fleet, what to carry the landing force and how to supply it, etc., etc., and post it here?
        There can be only one adequate answer - in the hypothetical case, if the Japanese seize the Kuriles and the commander-in-chief of the Russian Federation decides to release them, this is the work of the General Staff. And the fact that without a landing on Hokkaido the liberation of the Kuril Islands is almost impossible, this is obvious.
        
        Geopolitically, Japan is an unsinkable US aircraft carrier directed against China.
        
        Well, you said the main key word in this whole situation.
        
        Japan will not take the islands by force.
        
        Hopefully.
        In such a personally desirable case, our entire discussion is empty balabolism.
        Let me end our conversation on this optimistic note.
        I wish you a peaceful sky and good health.
        
        Bakht
        
        0
        
        6 January 2023 17: 34
        
        Landing in Hokkaido is PRACTICALLY unrealizable. This I know for sure. Even without a hint from the General Staff.
        
        Vladimir1155
        
        0
        
        7 January 2023 15: 11
        
        Quote: Bakht
        Don't think for your opponent. Nobody is going to give anything away.
        
        And then compare the composition of the fleets of Japan and the Pacific Fleet. Add two American AUGs and coastal anti-missile systems in Hokkaido to the same place.
        Suppose you landed troops in Hokkaido. So, what is next? What will be the size of the landing force? What transports will supply this landing. Will the Japanese and Americans watch how the transports cross these very "fifty kilometers"?
        
        The entire Pacific Fleet will go to the bottom within a couple of days (surface ships). The remaining ships will be in the bases and it is not a fact that they will survive there. The fate of “Moscow” has taught you nothing.
        
        The same applies to the "capture of the Kuriles" by the Japanese. No ship or even formation can withstand the impact of fifty anti-ship missiles.
        
        The only task of the Pacific Fleet is a retaliatory nuclear strike in the event of a full-scale war. This requires submarine missile carriers and a near-field fleet to ensure their deployment.
        
        everything is just like that
2. Sergey3939
  
  -1
  
  3 January 2023 23: 18
  
  Why rave? The main force and SSBNs and nuclear submarines, plus frigates with Zircons, we are waiting for Nakhimov!
  It is very interesting that in 3C14, you can charge both Onyx and Caliber and Zircon !!!
  Moscow is a moot point, but it is losing for us with part of the crew at the bottom! It's sad! But, there is a war!
  Plans for new ships for the Black Sea Fleet are working! There will be frigates and corvettes already at the exit!)))
  1. Vladimir1155
    
    0
    
    4 January 2023 08: 40
    
    Quote: Sergey3939
    Plans for new ships for the Black Sea Fleet are working! There will be frigates and corvettes already at the exit!)))
    
    only smart people like me (the modest one) can foresee (how much I warned about the need to bring Moscow to the North) stupid people don’t learn from other people’s mistakes, and very stupid people don’t even learn from their own, and step into the same puddle, and like a washed-up pig go to wallow in the mud, all corvettes and frigates in the Black Sea Fleet, Baltic Fleet and the Sea of Japan are destroyed by enemy coastal missiles as inexorably, 100% effectively and quickly as the Moscow cruiser
    1. Sergey3939
      
      +1
      
      4 January 2023 19: 40
      
      Ships of the first rank, needed in the Black Sea Fleet, for the Mediterranean KPUG, the closest base, after Tartus!
      1. Vladimir1155
        
        0
        
        7 January 2023 15: 14
        
        surface ships of the first rank are not needed anywhere, while they are still left, let them serve in the north, away from enemy coastal missiles, our SSBNs are 100 times more important than your tartus.
3. Vladimir1155
  
  +1
  
  4 January 2023 07: 32
  
  Quote: vlad127490
  flagship 1st rank for prestige, instead of Moscow,
  
  here it is the truth and the essence of all members of the aircraft carrier sect, to abandon satellites and UAVs from Krasnopol and Iskander in favor of cardboard displays drowned by one rocket
guest

+1

3 January 2023 23: 35

How the amphibious fleet could influence the course of the Russian NVO in Ukraine

The amphibious fleet is good, but it is even more important to have professional paratroopers without whom this entire fleet will simply be useless.
1. Sergey3939
  
  +1
  
  3 January 2023 23: 50
  
  Demagogy!
  Marines are fighting everywhere>)))
Vladimir1155

+1

4 January 2023 08: 14

I read the comments and saw that it is obvious to most experts that the very concept of udk and bdk is conceptually outdated, like large surface warships, and even more so surface first ranks, now the weapon is so effective that everyone is hiding and camouflaging on land and at sea, and the air force is afraid to fly outside his teritoi basically clings to the ground like tanks, hits from afar .... on the water, it means there is the most effective weapon, these are submarines and nuclear submarines! all others are auxiliary. If the landing, then these are dugong chamois (by the way, why does the author mention the unnecessary and militarily stupid UDC BDK and does not mention the actively used and effective MDK?) ... apparently gigantism and vanity among the Negro defeated common sense, calculation and thoughtfulness? this is the problem of all gigantomaniacs in the fleet, starting with the gerontological pot, Kuznetsov’s galley, the Rozhestvensky traitor, who squandered people’s money to the detriment of field artillery into a large fleet that consistently turned out to be totally ineffective in the REV WWI and NVO. Misrali is generally a dead end project of international cutting, France, known for its kickbacks for military equipment (scandal in South Korea), took advantage of an agreement with respected Medvedev about Georgia (France does not interfere with Russia in Ossetia, and in response we buy UDC from them), but our thieves decided, together with the French thieves, to cut a large one, a third of the contract is rolled back to ours (under the guise of logistics services), a third to the French (under the guise of personnel training) and only a third for the actual production of the ship, a terrible civilian ferry that does not have buoyancy compartments and partitions inherent in a warship, and even with poor stability and even built-on. he would not only die about one rocket, but also quickly in how many minutes like the ferry Estonia .... thank God, there were decent people like me, so when asked about the misrals of the Komflot, Vysotsky immediately ran to the toilet .... the landing of the large landing craft in Odessa is nonsense; they lost two fishing rods right in the port, but what would happen if they drank them filled with drugs? it is a crime to carry troops to the BDK UDC, only dugong chamois and, moreover, not always! Why admirals-caretakers love the BDK and UDC and large ships so much, it’s quite clear, it’s the supply manager that you can carry junk to the BDK in peacetime, but you can’t go to the nuclear submarine, some go to the officers to defend their homeland, while others to carry junk and even cut it’s more convenient to receive a variety of allowances for an asterisk at the first rank than on a minesweeper, here the Moscow cruiser was a typical tool for cutting allowances with zero combat effectiveness, and war always reveals sawing admiral tricks, sometimes death in Tsushima, sometimes death of Moscow, the shame of all battleships of WWI and WWII (settled in the port and heroically drowned right in it) and their shameful senseless death in WWII of Japanese German English .... the age of surface ships is long gone, all sorts of RTOs are easily replaced by ground-based missile launchers (experts have already written this here), attack ships are being replaced by aviation, and ground-based systems, only nuclear submarines are needed, a small number of frigates and corvettes PLO around the nuclear submarine bases (despite the fact that PLO mainly carried out by underwater tracking systems and PLO aircraft of which a lot is needed), minesweepers are needed (the entire Russian Navy is totally not combat-ready, it was stopped by obsolete Ukrainian mines, I and all real experts have been writing about this for years, we need 50 minesweepers and there are 5 of them).
Vladimir1155

-2

4 January 2023 08: 52

Quote: Scharnhorst
Just as our fleet did not need the Mistrals, so now the UDC pr.23900 is not needed. It was necessary to drive a series of initial 11711 to replace one by one the old tank landing ships pr.1171 and pr.775. Enough to produce "white elephants". Regarding the landing near Odessa. As the initial stage of the NMD showed, it was easier to force an unexpected throw across the Dnieper and the Bug along the bridges occupied by landing and special forces than to leave a marine brigade a hundred miles from the Crimea to the mercy of fate without a real possibility of replenishing and supplying the marine landing.

true!
Vladimir1155

-1

4 January 2023 09: 00

Quote: Vladimir80
Unfortunately, our fleet is just a continuation of our army - a lot of noise, a lot of big words and parades, but in fact the flagship sunk from one enemy missile. Therefore, all dreams about landing on ships must be immediately dismissed as harmful and dangerous. To begin with, it is necessary to launch reconnaissance satellites and establish communications among the troops. And do not waste energy and money on expensive iron posts that the enemy can easily send to the bottom.

true!
Vladimir1155

-1

4 January 2023 16: 20

Quote: Bakht
Can this be linked somehow?

he has a mess in his head, he understands that a few surface ships will all sink from coastal missiles, but he is going to fill the BDK with infantry and send it to the sea to certain death
1. DO
  
  +1
  
  4 January 2023 20: 55
  
  he has a mess in his head, he understands that a few surface ships will all sink from coastal missiles, but he is going to fill the BDK with infantry and send it to the sea to certain death
  
  it's a mess in your brain. For you are not able to understand the difference in overcoming fifty kilometers from Sakhalin to Hokkaido, with air and missile support from Sakhalin, and individual ships in the far sea zone, surrounded by a large enemy fleet and close to enemy shores.
  Or you pretend you don't understand. For you really want the Kuriles to go to the Japanese.
  1. Vladimir1155
    
    0
    
    5 January 2023 07: 43
    
    Quote: DO
    surrounded by a numerous enemy fleet and close to enemy shores
    
    you get a deuce in geography, look at the map, the Kuriles are just near Hokaido and no "rocket support" from Sakhalin will help the BDK overcome your 50 km, firstly it doesn’t exist, and secondly, create a reliable air defense umbrella for the BDK located 50 km from Sakhalin impossible without aviation, ... your chimerical ideas of airborne assault on the Kuril Islands with the help of the BDK UDC failed in the same place as the idea of \uXNUMXb\uXNUMXblanding troops on Odessa, the conclusion is that it is inexpedient and useless, it is criminal to risk personnel, only our nuclear strike on Japan will save the Kuriles,
    1. DO
      
      +1
      
      5 January 2023 14: 21
      
      Vladimir1155, do not distort. My words quoted by you relate to your text
      
      We need ships of the 1st rank to have a permanent presence at the borders of the USA, Great Britain, France. When the missiles reach the United States in less than 5 minutes, the Yankees immediately become accommodating.
      
      To be honest, I'm tired of your crooked attempts to turn cancer into a stone. It gets boring.
      Therefore, be healthy and forgive.
      1. Vladimir1155
        
        0
        
        7 January 2023 15: 32
        
        submarine first ranks are already suitable off the coast of the United States, called combat duty, no one argues with this, you need more apl ...... you died in an unequal struggle, your surface first ranks will drown from US coastal missiles like Moscow, you have no idea how many tens of billions are surface ships dying on one missile like Moscow, how much does it cost to operate them, and where to get the money? to tear from aviation from the airborne forces from the strategic missile forces from the ground forces, from air defense? where do you want to get money from?
The comment was deleted.
Sam Rimer

0

5 January 2023 02: 56

Quote: Vladimir80
Unfortunately, our fleet is just a continuation of our army - a lot of noise, a lot of big words and parades, but in fact the flagship sunk from one enemy missile. Therefore, all dreams about landing on ships must be immediately dismissed as harmful and dangerous. To begin with, it is necessary to launch reconnaissance satellites and establish communications among the troops. And do not waste energy and money on expensive iron posts that the enemy can easily send to the bottom.

"Admiral Nakhimov" has been under repair since 1999. And nothing! True, they soon promise to release it for sea trials.