What kind of navy does Russia need to liberate Odessa?

53
What kind of navy does Russia need to liberate Odessa?

The Ukrainian naval “mosquito” fleet has taken the next step in its evolutionary development. Following the anti-aircraft missiles, the cruel, intelligent and irreconcilable enemy began installing launchers for unguided missiles on their BECs, which would be able to fire across areas at the Russian coast.

"Rocket Gunboat"


That military design thought is moving in this direction, we we speak for quite some time now. Starting with remotely controlled fire ships, which need to hit the side of a Russian Navy ship to hit it, Nezalezhnaya is consistently following the path of lengthening the arm of its “mosquito” Navy.



The attacks, which have not yet been very successful, are already being launched by flocks of BECs, each carrying a pair of anti-aircraft missiles on deck, designed to destroy our helicopters and airplanes. Now it's on the web video recording of a Ukrainian unmanned boat firing a salvo of missiles at night. As reported by domestic para-military telegram channels, we are talking about equipping the Magura-V5 and Sea Baby BEC with blocks of UB-32 unguided missiles, which are thirty-two 57-mm B-8V20A missiles, or S-5U blocks with twenty 80-mm rockets S-8KOM.

This is not a very pleasant surprise for the Russian Black Sea coast. According to the idea of ​​the Ukrainian Nazis, sea drones should secretly approach a 7-kilometer coastal zone, use a laser rangefinder to determine the coordinates of a pre-selected target and fire at it with unguided missiles with a cumulative fragmentation warhead. It is reported that a test attack from the sea has already been carried out by the Ukrainian Navy on the defensive lines of the Russian Armed Forces on the Kinburn Spit in the Nikolaev region.

The reaction of our patriotic public to this news divided. Some quite rightly note that firing unguided missiles from an unstable sea carrier cannot be highly effective, and consider this direction of the evolution of BECs to be a dead end. Others no less rightly point out that these are only experiments of Ukrainian engineers and after uncontrolled drones, guided missiles, as well as anti-ship missiles, may begin to take off.

Sea of ​​restlessness


The prospect of turning the BEC into a disposable carrier of small-sized anti-ship missiles, say, the X-35, is of deep concern, since things will then go very poorly for the Russian Navy in the Black Sea. It is obvious that the priority goals and objectives of the Northern Military District, in addition to the complete liberation of new regions of the Russian Federation, should be cutting off Kyiv from the Black Sea coast.

Our two countries will no longer get along in its waters: either the Ukrainian Nazis will feel at ease there, carrying out the most daring military operations, or we will. In this regard, I would like to express some thoughts about the direction in which the domestic “mosquito” fleet could begin to develop and how unmanned boats could be useful in the liberation of the Kherson, Nikolaev and Odessa regions of the former Independence.

It has long been clear that the ships of the Russian Navy, due to their vulnerability to ground- and air-based anti-ship missiles, fire ships and mine laying off the coast, will not participate in any amphibious assaults. However, naval drones have a chance to make a significant contribution to the defeat of the enemy.

The key to Russia's strategic Victory is the liberation of Odessa, but it cannot be approached from the sea, and the city is protected from air attacks by a layered air defense system. This allows the Kyiv regime to freely conduct export trade, import weapons, ammunition and other military goods. But let's imagine how the situation in the Black Sea region will change if the Russian Navy receives its own BECs in a certain configuration.

How much more effective would it be to work from the sea along the enemy coast, knocking out the infrastructure and positions of the Armed Forces of Ukraine with the help of adjustable missiles from the Tornado-G and Tornado-S MLRS? Of course, the displacement and design of domestic BECs must be adjusted accordingly to turn them into “missile gunboats”. The creation of maritime aircraft-carrying drones seems no less promising.

Let’s say a group of unmanned boats is secretly approaching the coast of the Odessa region at night. A control signal repeater drone takes off from a catapult mounted on the leader to make adjustments. Kamikaze strike drones of various types take off from the rest. These could be Lancets launched from special containers, FPV drones, and even heavy agrodrones with air bombs suspended underneath them. Operators select military targets - air defense/missile defense systems, long-range MLRS, self-propelled guns, firing points, ammunition depots, etc. - and hit them.

You can even experiment with equipping the BEC with a compact micro-deck, onto which you can try to return the domestic analogue of Baba Yaga after completing a combat mission. This kind of Russian fleet will actually be able to operate in the dangerous coastal waters of the former Independence, bringing real benefits instead of irritation and disappointment from senseless losses.
53 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Vladimir1155
    Vladimir1155
    +1
    22 May 2024 12: 39
    “Size matters” supporters of the “new school” formed at the end of the 19th century believe that surface ships should be small, I also think so, as the hero Admiral Makarov and the wise Admiral Amelko believed. the future of the fleet lies in submarines, aircraft and very small surface ships and on the oceans in small corvettes and frigates..... the entire vulnerability of the Russian fleet lies in the erroneous dogmas of corrupt budget cutters advocating for large surface ships like Gorshkov, who built at the end of the 20th century, as many as 6 battleships and several aircraft carriers that ingloriously ended the war in the trash heap without having served even half their term, or as a cousin parasitizing on the military budget, completely useless and in combat senseless "always under repair" because Russia has no tasks for it and there is no combat security, aircraft carriers are the destiny of the USA and the PRC of India having many tasks ahead of them and many guard ships......... moving in this light to the backs, it should be noted that they have two advantages, they are unmanned and small in size (invisibility)... they are not visible on radars, installing a ro on them greatly increases the size and price, which means it reduces the number, identifying them can be destroyed far from your shore, ... my personal opinion, if it weren’t for the complete collapse of the fleet by incompetent admirals, then there would be no problem with the backs at all, primitive fire ships or something like uncontrollable kasams in the hands of Hamas, all the more so when they are pitched, the concealed weapon is psychological because it is not accurate, our admirals sawed off the money on the frigates udk BDK, and there are few minesweepers and aircraft, I hope the new commander in chief Moiseev will restore order, stop laying down huge ships and use funds for more prosaic and necessary goals
    1 radars and aircraft capable of identifying and destroying fire ships,
    2 minesweepers capable of destroying mines and fire ships,
    3 mpc,
    4 submarines for striking enemy coasts....
    it is still necessary to withdraw all large warships, destroyer cruisers and frigates with corvettes to the oceans to ensure the stability of the SSBNs, from closed seas where they are vulnerable to coastal weapons, the Baltic black Caspian and Japanese seas, having Iskander calibers and so on, there is no need for backs with primitive missiles , but it is necessary to develop means of their destruction
    1. strange guest
      strange guest
      +4
      22 May 2024 15: 14
      How will small ships - corvettes and frigates - perform combat missions in the North Atlantic in October-February? recourse Who would answer...
      1. Vladimir1155
        Vladimir1155
        0
        22 May 2024 15: 34
        you are kind of strange, you make 10 mistakes per line (it’s a big sin to write illiterately, not in the sense of grammar but in the sense of logic), firstly, corvettes and frigates are not small ships..... small ships include ships of the third rank MRK IPC minesweepers, they are of a size suitable for navigating inland waterways, and corvettes and frigates are ships of the second rank
        1 frigate. Cruising range 4500 miles (at 14 knots)
        Sailing autonomy is 30 days. The ship's seaworthiness allows the use of weapons in sea conditions of up to 5 points. this is an ocean zone ship
        2 corvettes. Cruising range 4000 miles (at 14 knots)[1]
        Navigation autonomy 15 days Improved seaworthiness - ships of the project, in comparison with the seaworthiness of ships of the same displacement, with equal restrictions on pitching, allows the use of ship weapons in sea conditions of up to 5 points

        It should be noted that both ships have an unlimited range and seaworthiness if accompanied by a supply vessel and a tanker. According to the Deputy Commander of the Pacific Fleet for Armaments, Rear Admiral Igor Korolev, the ships of the series have increased efficiency, in particular: the corvette “Gromky” is the most economical ship in the entire history of the Navy (Navy) and is capable of making voyages to the shores of Australia [

        We don’t need cruisers, let the old ones serve out their time, replace them with frigates

        your second deepest mistake reveals your complete ignorance of maritime affairs in comparison with such specialists as me, you are writing about some ephemeral “tasks in the North Atlantic”; modern high-tech warfare implies for a frigate and a corvette and any surface ship tasks far from its shores only peaceful time, protection of shipping and fishing, fight against pirates, this task can be performed by patrol ships, and armed seiners and bulk carriers, large landing ships, border ships.... in a real war, all frigates and corvettes can and should only perform air defense missions in the Barents Sea and the Kamchatka part of the Pacific Ocean, so that no one lies in wait for our SSBNs and submarines right at the entrance/exit to the base, that is, the ships are an aid to underwater tracking systems
        1. strange guest
          strange guest
          -3
          22 May 2024 22: 26
          Sea level 5 is just a rough sea. Which is considered good weather in the North Atlantic in the autumn-winter period. And often 6-7 and even with icing... And these ships will no longer be combat-ready. Do you know that excitement, which is rated 4 points among American sailors, is rated 5 points among British sailors, and 6 points among Russians. Accordingly, the Americans have better seaworthiness and combat effectiveness. Because a sea power knows how to build ships. And count money. Otherwise they would also have hit 500 corvettes. But instead they build Berks...
          1. Vladimir1155
            Vladimir1155
            0
            22 May 2024 22: 35
            you're weird, why lie to me?

            5 points - fresh
            Almost the entire sea is covered with white lambs. Wind speed 8 - 10,7 m / s, wave height 2 meters. Swinging branches and thin tree trunks.

            6 points - strong
            The sea in many places is covered with white ridges. The height of the waves reaches 4x meters, the average height is 3 meters. Wind speed 10,8 - 13,8 m / s. Bending thin tree trunks, and thick tree branches, buzzing telephone wires.

            7 Points - Strong
            The sea is covered with white foamy ridges, which from time to time are blown off by the wind from the surface of the water. The wave height reaches 5,5 meters, the average height is 4,7 meters. Wind speed 13,9 - 17,1 m / s. Medium tree trunks sway, branches bend.

            8 points - very strong
            Strong waves, foam on each crest. The wave height reaches 7,5 meters, the average height is 5,5 meters. Wind speed 17,2 - 20 m / s. It is difficult to go against the wind, it is almost impossible to talk. Thin branches of trees break.

            9 Points - Storm
            High sea waves, reaching 10 meters; average height 7 meters. Wind speed 20,8 - 24,4 m / s. Big trees bend, middle branches break. The wind rips off poorly reinforced roofs.

            10 points - severe storm
            The sea is white. The waves crash onto the shore or against the rocks with a roar. The maximum wave height is 12 meters, the average height is 9 meters. The wind, with a speed of 24,5 - 28,4 m/s, tears off roofs and causes significant damage to buildings.

            11 points - severe storm
            High waves reach 16 meters, with an average height of 11,5 meters. Wind speed 28,5 - 32,6 m/s. Accompanied by great destruction on land.

            12 points - hurricane
            Wind speed 32,6 m/s. Serious damage to permanent structures. The wave height is more than 16 meters.
        2. bug120560
          bug120560
          -1
          25 May 2024 21: 22
          Vladimir, you are, of course, a “very important specialist” in the history of the fleet, the tactics of the combat use of ships and their capabilities, but let me note that you are just a person who picked up superficial information from Wikipedia and you painfully remind me of a player in the computer game “Tanks”, trying to use information obtained in the game to reason about the real combat capabilities of tanks.
          1. Vladimir1155
            Vladimir1155
            +1
            25 May 2024 21: 40
            you have switched to my personality, cowardly moving away from the topic, apparently from the understanding that I am right, you are trying to put a good face on a bad game, if you were a naval tactician specialist, you would explain to me the use of the Gorshkov cruisers 1164 1144 (which in terms of their performance characteristics and weapons are practically battleships, but missile ones) and at the same time 956 in modern naval warfare, ... you can’t? Do you understand that there is no point in these ships and there was no point other than arrogance and cutting budgets? and that they practically fulfill the role of coastal frigates instead of much cheaper projects 1135 1155 11356...? Do you have any arguments other than getting personal out of hopelessness and obviousness to everyone that you are wrong?
            1. bug120560
              bug120560
              -1
              26 May 2024 13: 04
              Vladimir, I didn’t even have the intention of insulting you, I just really wanted you, if you decide to evaluate something, to stop using the conjectures of cheap demagogues on the topic “does Russia need a fleet and what should it be like? We don’t need that, because what is expensive” and superficial information from Wikipedia, but based their reasoning on more serious sources.
              As for it being obvious to everyone that I am wrong and going off topic.
              If you are ready, let's continue our exchange of views. And to make it clear, everything I state is my personal opinion, and I do not at all claim the laurels of the ultimate and indisputable truth. And as they say, let's move on.
              Due to the fact that only a complete idiot would today decide to approach from the sea to the shores of the state, which are covered by coastal anti-ship missile systems, I would like to talk first about the high seas fleet. To the question of whether Russia needs a fleet of the far ocean zone, there can be only one answer, such a fleet is not only needed, it is simply necessary. What should this fleet be like? This directly depends on the tasks that it is designed to solve. What are the likely challenges that may arise? It’s not possible to predict everything here, but it seems to me that the main thing here may be:
              - countering the enemy fleet in the far zone, in order to prevent it from reaching its shores;
              - covering deployment sites and protecting their SSBNs and multi-purpose nuclear submarines at the time of their strikes with nuclear weapons, countering similar enemy actions;
              - ensuring freedom of navigation.
              Now let's look at what a potential enemy has in stock - these are, first of all, those same notorious AUGs, capable of almost completely solving the entire range of issues related to launching massive missile strikes from positions outside the coverage area of ​​coastal systems, while possessing very serious reconnaissance and anti-submarine defense means of their own and air defense/missile defense systems, plus the presence of combat aircraft. You can easily verify this for yourself by looking at the ship composition of any AUG, the composition of the weapons of the ships included in the group and the composition of the aviation wing of any aircraft carrier. And do you really think that patrol ships of Project 1135, frigates of Project 11356 were capable of performing tasks in the face of enemy fleets during the existence of the USSR, and more modern frigates of Project 11356 can do this today? These are certainly good ships, but, alas, they are not capable of independently solving problems of confrontation with AUG, only in a “team”. Now I hope that we have come to understand why the USSR built aircraft-carrying cruisers of projects 1143.1-4, 1143.5-6 and 1143.7 and missile cruisers of projects 1164 Atlant and 1144 Orlan. And the last thing I would like to write about is in relation to Admiral Gorshkov, whom you indiscriminately accused of incompetence and “cutting up” the budget. It was thanks to him that the USSR had aircraft-carrying and attack missile cruisers, and the correctness of his concept of building a combat-ready ocean fleet is confirmed by time and the fact that this is exactly how China is building its fleet today. Expensive, and not just expensive, but very expensive. But as they say, “a people who do not want to feed their army will soon feed someone else’s.”
              1. Vladimir1155
                Vladimir1155
                0
                26 May 2024 23: 08
                thank you for the detailed and most importantly business-like answer,
                I answer essentially point by point

                1 countering foreign fleets in the far sea zone, this is only possible in relation to Honduras and other third world countries with which we are not going to fight, because all the Russian cruisers available are 3 pieces, well, there would be 6 of them... well, there are dozens of destroyers ( Now there are two of them and they are very old)
                us fleet 11 av 17 cruisers 67 large modern destroyers the size and armament of our kr 1164, all our potential enemies are connected with the us military alliances, that is, the fleets of other countries can not be counted, they are added to the us fleet... since the task is to counter the fleet with surface ships USA and its allies is impossible, under no circumstances, due to the numerical superiority over both the USSR and the Russian Federation, it cannot be set up, only criminal admirals like the traitor Rozhestvensky Gorkov and Motsak can send the fleet to certain death in Tsushima or Moscow to serpentine
                2 covering the places where nuclear submarines are deployed.... well, you yourself correctly write that approaching surface ships from the enemy shore is useless and suicidal, I agree with you, that’s why it’s a mistake of all aircraft carriers that I have heard many times (before I smashed the entire aircraft carrier to smithereens totalitarian destructive sect), that supposedly in the places of deployment of the SSBN (west and east coast of the USA, the Arctic Ocean) there may be some kind of cover, this is three times wrong,
                2.1 the US coast is protected by the fleet, air force and coastal anti-ship missiles, controlled by satellites,
                2.2 and not every icebreaker will pass through the Arctic Ocean, cruisers don’t sail there....
                2.3 submarines do not need cover at deployment sites; such cover will only give them away; submarines have stealth as their main advantage; do not deprive them of their main trump card
                3 you mentioned countering enemies at your bases so that enemy submarines do not wait for our SSBNs right at the exit and port... right! this requires underwater tracking systems, aircraft, missile-carrying naval aviation, frigates and corvettes, minesweepers and coastal missiles,
                4 protection of shipping in peacetime is carried out by frigates and corvettes, and in time of war it is impossible to do anything
                output
                We don’t need 1 advance carrier cruiser and destroyers, they perform the function of a frigate, we write them off as they become decommissioned
                2 it is necessary to withdraw all ships of the first second rank except the BDK to the oceans
                3 needed be200 plo, minesweepers, karkurt mpk plo, more submarines, coastal missiles and coastal aviation

                Since pots were cutting budgets for unnecessary super-expensive “cruisers”, at our prices each would cost 500-800 billion rubles, there weren’t enough people for sour cream and perestroika took place, pots provoked the collapse of the union with his actions, he is guilty! just like Admiral Krylov in his three battleships that destroyed the great Russian empire because because of them there was not enough for bread and shells for field artillery, and battleships were never useful during three wars.... in the same way now the sawmills from the Navy are sawing for unnecessary udk BDK, and not enough money for drones and body armor.....the people who squander money on battleships and cruisers are forced to bleed in a land war
                "If you want to ruin a country, give it a cruiser" from Churchill
                1. bug120560
                  bug120560
                  -1
                  27 May 2024 19: 59
                  Vladimir, again you are lumping everything into one huge pile, and your opinion about the uselessness of the ocean-going fleet and the lack of money among the people for sour cream is apparently due to the fact that all the money, due to the stupid or criminal will of the country’s top military leadership, went to the defense industry, and the money that arose from - For this, the lack of money among the people caused restructuring in the country. I am forced to point out that your economy is even worse than your history and the concept of what a fleet is.
                  In the USSR, before perestroika, there was not even such a concept as “delay or non-payment of wages,” and the level of this very wage made it possible to live quite decently. As for the economic reasons for the collapse of the union, the reason lies not in spending on the country’s defense, but precisely in that incompetent policy of “buying” allies and disinterested help to the detriment of oneself. As soon as someone declared that he would build socialism in his country, money and help flowed like a river. Do you know how many such debts the Russian Federation, as the successor to the union, simply wrote off. Defending your, by and large, primitive, and therefore stupid opinion regarding the history of the country and the prospects for the development of the fleet, you again resort to the “cheap” cliches of demagogues-propagandists of the times of perestroika, and even some of the new ones, whose goal is one - to pour slop on the heritage of a great country , and at the same time the people who really created this legacy.
                  So you persistently accuse Admiral of the Fleet of the Soviet Union Gorshkov of corruption and incompetence in the strategy of building a fleet. Then explain why today China is building exactly the same fleet that Gorshkov once built for the USSR? And during this time the following were built: anti-submarine cruisers-helicopter carriers of Project 1123.1-3 - 2 units (both were sold during perestroika); aircraft-carrying cruisers of project 1143.1-4 – 4 units (all sold); aircraft-carrying cruisers of project 1143.5-6 - 2 pieces (of which one is the same long-suffering “Admiral Kuznetsov”, the second was sold, and, unlike ours, under the name “Liaoning”, is safely serving in the Chinese Navy); missile cruisers of project 1164 "Atlant" - 4 pcs.; heavy nuclear missile cruisers of Project 1144 "Orlan" - 4 pcs. And pay attention, I only brought here the built ships of the first rank, but if you take an interest, you will understand that with the rest of the ships, everything was far from the same as it is now. Your main mistake is that during the analysis you fundamentally incorrectly identify the reasons or, if you like, pose the questions you are trying to answer. And now briefly on your points:
                  1. The fact that today the Russian Federation does not have a combat-ready ocean-going fleet is certainly not the fault of either Gorshkov or Ustinov.
                  2. The deployment sites for SSBNs and nuclear submarines carrying cruise missiles have never been on the coasts of a potential enemy. The range of ballistic intercontinental missiles is 6–8 thousand km, sea-launched cruise missiles are about 2,5 thousand km. Of course, the closer the carrier gets to the object, the better (less time for the missile defense systems to operate), but I don’t think anyone will poke under the coastal complex. And against submarines, coastal anti-ship systems with their range can only be effective if they surface right under their noses.
                  3. Regarding the protection of bases, I completely agree with you here that these are the ships that are needed for this. But they are not able to cover their boats at deployment sites and prevent enemy ships from getting within missile strike range.
                  As for the statement you quoted, Churchill put it this way:

                  If you want to ruin a small country, give it a cruiser...

                  I hope there is no need to explain such a small country?
                  1. Vladimir1155
                    Vladimir1155
                    0
                    27 May 2024 20: 35
                    thank you for your detailed and businesslike answer, in general I agree with the three points that you give, and they all prove that I am right, that is, we have come to a consensus that surface ships have no tasks far from our shores and that, therefore, ships of the first rank are not needed by the Russian Federation , this is reality, and if only beans would grow in the forest and there would be not a mouth, but a vegetable garden, ....... I also clarify that I did not write that the submarines will approach the enemy shore immediately, but they will approach as you are writing to him so that coastal assets would not reach them, but so that the missiles fly as close as possible to coastal targets, why China needs aircraft carriers and cruisers with destroyers, and here’s why, because there are a billion Chinese, its economy is the first in the world and therefore that he has huge interests far from his shores and has resources for a fleet of distant oceans, Churchill wrote about a small city, but not everything is always decided by territory, we have a lot of permafrost, but the population of Russia is smaller than Bangladesh, Nigeria, Brazil, Pakistan, Indonesia and India, China, the USA cannot be compared with us at all, so our country has become small by Churchill’s standards, although great Russia has not yet turned into small Britain like England, but we cannot afford an endless military budget, or an aircraft carrier or thousands of shells, the caliber of Iskander maces of Yars c300 body armor and drones? what is more important? I think the topic of ship composition is complete, and if you don’t think so, please clarify where I’m wrong
                    1. bug120560
                      bug120560
                      -1
                      28 May 2024 19: 18
                      Vladimir, what you wrote begs a short answer in the words of a classic of Russian literature:

                      ...and you, my friend, are a sharper...

                      It’s very interesting where you saw my agreement with you that the Russian Navy has no missions far from our shores and that Russia doesn’t need ships in the far ocean zone? There are tasks and what exactly I have already written to you (read more carefully). Ships are needed like air, and the fact that they are not there today is the “merit of the wisest” political leadership of the country in the dashing 90s, which created absolutely nothing and managed to steal and squander almost everything that was left of the USSR. For giving this leadership a special and low “bow” (I really hope that in the next world these merits will be appreciated). I would like to believe that today our leadership will have enough wisdom not to put under the “knife” those crumbs that are still left from the ocean-going fleet of the USSR, at least until they are replaced.
                      Regarding the fact that there are a billion Chinese and they are the first economy in the world and therefore they are building an ocean-going fleet, but today China is the first economy in the world and they are building a fleet precisely in order to remain so. Because the economy is, first of all, trade, trade is trade routes, and sea trade routes are the presence of a strong fleet capable of protecting them.
                      As of January 1, 2024, the population of Russia was 146 people; the population of Japan, as of May 150, was estimated to be about 789 people. Don’t take the trouble to look at the size of the Russian Pacific Fleet and the size of the Japanese fleet.
                      1. Vladimir1155
                        Vladimir1155
                        0
                        28 May 2024 20: 03
                        Well, if you think that large ships are needed, then make up your mind, the USSR built 7 (and not 8 cruisers as you lied) there were also 20 destroyers under the conditions of the mobilization economy .... it was useless, because the USA and its allies had 50 times more. ... now explain to me where to get so much money if each cruiser costs 500 billion, and you need 2000 pennants ... this is more empty because there is no money, there is definitely not that much, you want a proud feast although you could not name real feasible goals for the cruisers ... .if you want to play with ships, then why should this upset the state? ...

                        Feasts are given for pleasure, and wine makes life merry; and silver is responsible for everything.

                        ecclesiastes
                      2. Navigator
                        Navigator
                        0
                        28 May 2024 20: 42
                        I’m reading your debate with Vladimir and can’t resist adding my 5 cents. Based on the results of the debate, I formed the opinion that Vladimir is (was) related to the Navy and his rank is clearly not first class petty officer. I fully share all his arguments and point of view. But I don’t agree with you. I will not stir up history and discuss our former naval commanders. This is not relevant today. But the decisions of the current admirals are alarming and surprising. You have a slightly incorrect vision of the tasks for the Navy, unlike Vladimir, and an incomprehensible manic persistence in defending it. With Wikipedia you communicate much more often, unlike your opponent. You remind me of the political officer of the Soviet army, who, having a superficial understanding of the issue, categorically imposes his opinion on those around him. Sorry if I offended you in any way.
                      3. bug120560
                        bug120560
                        0
                        28 May 2024 21: 06
                        Andrey, for your 5 kopecks, I can assure you that I am not friends with Wikipedia, I just really love history. I have never had anything to do with political agencies. So that you can already understand everything about our dispute - it just began with Vladimir’s indiscriminate abuse of Admiral Gorshkov and Marshal Ustinov. As for your opinion,

                        Vladimir is (was) related to the Navy and is clearly not in the rank of petty officer 1st article

                        then his competence is very clearly evidenced by the level of his Russian language.
              2. Vladimir1155
                Vladimir1155
                -1
                27 May 2024 20: 50
                Now another big topic is the economy, are you interested in why the USSR collapsed, and is the pots to blame? .
                maybe the man of the pots was a good man, but as an official he ruined the country along with other nomenclature bureaucrats of the same kind, they all cut through budgets and also stole as much as they could, and they paid salaries on time, but the squandering and theft of the people’s property led to a situation where the received salary could not always be converted butter in meat, I had to buy it on the market at a higher price than the state price, I lived in the USSR and I remember living in the capital, where everything was, but unnecessary Gorkovsky battleships = cruisers and two dozen zsminets are what is now called cutting, and in Chechnya almost they couldn’t assemble a combat-ready army, they mobilized riot police and the traffic police, but they had cruisers..... now the same problem with the Northern Military District, big-assed bureaucrats like Bulgakov and the traitor Timur Ivanov, but if there were pots, he would have turned out the same, seemingly reliable turned out to be the cause of large losses of our heroic fighters, and the incompetent Gorshkovsky fleet was only a beautiful cardboard fleet for parades in appearance, but it showed that “the best cruiser based on the Kuga air defense system” perishes from the first missile, the fault is in this cruiser and in its inglorious and unjustified death the death of his personal squad personally on Gorshkov, because the commander-in-chief did not bother to think through either the concept of the ship, or the tactics or strategy of the war at sea, which we discussed above without being broad-jacketed admirals and generals hung with awards like Bulgakov and pots, pots, he simply sawed the budget for everything that was more expensive in order to plant personnel there and saw their allowance for 30 years, although tactically and strategically these ships are UNNECESSARY... USELESS.... it would be better if I built a couple of nuclear submarines more and they would still protect our peace
                1. bug120560
                  bug120560
                  0
                  28 May 2024 19: 20
                  Vladimir, I also lived in the USSR (I have an economics education) and, unlike you, I know the real reasons for its fall. The reason for the decline was not defense spending, but the political leadership's manic commitment to the international socialist movement. To the detriment of their economy, geniuses such as General Secretaries Khrushchev and Brezhnev spent huge and uncontrollable sums on supporting all sorts of regimes and leaders, the main thing was that they declared their intention to build socialism and be opponents of the West. I hope you don’t need to remind you that the Secretary General’s decision was the final and categorical authority. Therefore, there is no need to sell me very foul-smelling nonsense about the impoverished country of the USSR and its ostentatious army. Regarding the lack of funds in post-Soviet Russia, I want to tell you this. Not long ago, a discussion was shown on TV between the then still living Zhirinovsky and some official; to this official’s “moaning” about the lack of funds, Zhirinovsky replied (I can’t vouch for the accuracy, but that’s the meaning) -

                  ... haven’t you tried to steal less?
                  1. Vladimir1155
                    Vladimir1155
                    0
                    28 May 2024 20: 08
                    nomenkatroon officials stole and squandered, and not only on the countries of Asia and Africa, but also on the navy, and now they also squander on the navy, moreover, without ordering the equipment and weapons the fleet needs, but squander it down the drain on fishing rods, we need to sell Kuzya urgently and buy with these means of be200 submarines and minesweepers, write off all cruisers except Nakhimov within 8 years, and do not lay down new ones
                    1. bug120560
                      bug120560
                      0
                      28 May 2024 21: 34
                      Vladimir, you turned our dialogue into a constant and rather boring repetition of the same thing, in the spirit of “all officials steal, everything is bad, today we need this and that and that and that.” This is instead of expressing your opinion at least once (if you have one, of course) why everything is the way it is. As for what is needed today, perhaps first of all you need to remember that in addition to today there will also be tomorrow. And what about our ocean fleet from the times of the USSR, read at least the memoirs of ship commanders who made long ocean voyages at that time, they are full of descriptions of how the vaunted AUGs of the same 6th US Fleet were removed from the zones in which Soviet squadrons appeared. The question of Russia’s need for a fleet was resolved a very long time ago, even before we were born, it was decided by Peter I. And the main thing is that the problem of what it should be would be solved not by those “in their own way” optimizers and “effective” managers, but by truly professional specialists, for in which the concept of “honor” is not an empty phrase.
                      1. Vladimir1155
                        Vladimir1155
                        0
                        28 May 2024 21: 46
                        again, you have no arguments against my position, but you want me that several commanders of large ships left their memories, the cruiser can still be placed on posters, for your pleasure, but I think we don’t need a poster plywood fleet...... about how to remove the thieves I know managers, the whole people need to become believers in God, otherwise everything will be the same
                      2. bug120560
                        bug120560
                        0
                        29 May 2024 07: 30
                        Vladimir, it is very difficult to explain something to a deaf person. You simply stubbornly do not want to listen to anything other than your “postulates”. You have absolutely no position other than cheap demagoguery.
                      3. Vladimir1155
                        Vladimir1155
                        -1
                        29 May 2024 07: 41
                        you admitted your own powerlessness.... you seemed to answer point by point, but again turned to emotions..... to remove thieving managers you need to come to GOD, and for this you need to give up idols, but if your idol is “cruisers” wandering ocean expanses of the universe from which everyone runs away like hares" then this idol does not allow you and the majority like you to come to God, and that is why the authorities in the Russian Federation steal, that is why we are lying around drunk, that is why men die out at the age of 40-50, they die like flies, so the SVO proceeds with a creak....... a vicious circle, but it is useless to argue with you, because you have developed a dominant according to Ukhtomsky = idol, even the fact of sinking a cruiser with one missile does not convince you, just as Tsushima did not convince you either you and Gorshkov and Krylov, you deny objective facts for the sake of your subjective idol, when you refuse a dominant, stress begins with another Dominant = God you rejected, and now it clings to the cruiser like a straw because you are afraid of stress with the possibility of deep depression,
                      4. bug120560
                        bug120560
                        0
                        29 May 2024 17: 33
                        Yes, I don’t have any special emotions. If you don't understand, I'll try to explain again. Firstly, the questions: whether you need it or not, and whether you can afford it or not, these are questions of completely different categories. What I mean is that I constantly discuss with you only the question of whether Russia needs an ocean-going fleet or not. Secondly, in my opinion, I explained to you in sufficient detail my opinion why Russia’s ocean fleet is necessary (this does not mean at all that you need to give up everything and urgently focus only on its construction). Well, I’ll try again, such a fleet is primarily needed to increase the stability of the naval component of our nuclear triad - without covering with formations of surface forces capable of resisting modern AUGs at sea and in the air (and these are primarily ships of the 1st rank, or comparable ones, or superior enemy ships in their striking potential) the deployment of our strategic nuclear submarines for strikes in the most suitable operational zones at distances acceptable for maximum effective destruction is a mortal risk, and for most of them such access to sea will be a “one-way ticket” , while it is far from a fact that they will have time to shoot back. Today, our submarine fleet has at least three advantages: there is ice nearby in the north, under which no one can “see” our boats, but this increases the flight time; - this is the fact that our SSBNs are capable of firing in a single salvo with a full load of ammunition from their territorial waters in a short time, where they can be covered by coastal complexes, naval and army aviation and light naval forces, and finally, what even the Americans recognize today is the advantage of our missiles in terms of overcoming missile defense. This is today, but what will happen tomorrow?
                        During the Soviet era, our fleet had all this thanks, among other things, to Admiral Gorshkov, why can’t we do it now? Believe me, the answer to this question lies on a completely different plane than the answer to the question whether it is necessary or not. However, regarding the fleet, you can remain unconvinced.
                      5. Vladimir1155
                        Vladimir1155
                        0
                        29 May 2024 18: 47
                        you are wrong several times,
                        first of all, discussing what you want if there is no money for it and there won’t be any, it’s pointless, these are empty vibrations in the air
                        secondly, a surface fleet of the first rank is not needed, not only because there is no money, but also because a surface ship is vulnerable, it is a slow-moving target, this was known by supporters of the “young school” at the end of the 19th century, this was proven in Tsushima, this is proven by mass death battleships and cruisers in WWII and WWII and WWII.... this is proven by the death of the cruiser Moscow, and the tasks of covering nuclear submarines are much more effectively solved by coastal aviation, not only long-range, but also front-line, and this is not only an order of magnitude cheaper, but also more effective, fast transfer to the theater of operations, range and speed, survivability is also higher than that of a surface ship, an order of magnitude higher
                        thirdly, you forgot the most important factor of nuclear submarines is secrecy (and this is their main advantage compared to suicide surface ships, even on land now everyone is camouflaged and hiding, these are new methods of war, camouflage. to camouflage and camouflage plus speed and miature, then which a surface ship does not and will not have) so the chimera about “shooting from the Sea of ​​Okhotsk” must be forgotten, finding a submarine in the ocean is more difficult than a needle in a haystack
                        fourthly, in Gorshkov’s time there was no superiority of surface ships over the US fleet, but there was a cardboard fleet for cutting allowances, for parades and bravura captains’ memories of unnecessary single long-distance voyages
                      6. bug120560
                        bug120560
                        0
                        29 May 2024 19: 16
                        You again started a “blizzard” about the cardboard fleet, lack of money, etc. Stay with your poor opinion. And it’s very good that really serious people who make decisions about what the fleet should be like still have more concepts than you. And that is why our design bureaus are developing designs for ships today, including 1st rank ships for the fleet - tomorrow. Everything has its time.
                      7. Vladimir1155
                        Vladimir1155
                        0
                        29 May 2024 19: 21
                        I remain with my smart opinion, you have again run out of arguments, because you understood my obvious rightness, stay with your delusions and empty blue dreams of a pink pony, I really regret that I saved the cruiser "Admiral Nakhimov" from the planned decommissioning, but we were deceived instead of 50 billion It turned out that 200 billion was needed for repairs, but the projects of the super Gorshkov and the leader’s super destroyer, also the aircraft carrier Storm and other nonsense were closed thanks to me, and the management of the Krylov Central Research Institute and the Northern Design Bureau were fired for stupidity, so that they wouldn’t plan stupid things

                        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w_wopnTZT4s
                      8. bug120560
                        bug120560
                        0
                        29 May 2024 19: 49
                        But this one:

                        ...I really regret that I saved the cruiser "Admiral Nakhimov" from the planned decommissioning...

                        - I'm sorry, I didn't understand. I'm not talking about the grammar of the Russian language, although this is very indicative of your educational level. Admit it, seriously - isn’t your name Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin? If this is so, then I am very flattered by our communication with you. Or are you just suffering from delusions of grandeur?
                      9. Vladimir1155
                        Vladimir1155
                        0
                        29 May 2024 19: 51
                        Dear Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin makes decisions based on expert opinions of those he trusts
                      10. bug120560
                        bug120560
                        0
                        30 May 2024 08: 02
                        When we started our dialogue, I thought that I was talking with a person who had his own opinion, now I see that I entered into a dialogue with a person who does not have his own opinion, who writes with the sole purpose of simply writing something. At the same time, with asinine stubbornness, he defends the opinions of demagogues at every opportunity, shouting: “everything is lost, the cast is removed, the client is leaving,” and even those suffering from delusions of grandeur.
                        And finally, let me give you some advice - read more (this does not apply to the “tabloid” press), maybe then problems with grammar will disappear.
                      11. Vladimir1155
                        Vladimir1155
                        -1
                        30 May 2024 09: 51
                        you have now finally and completely admitted your inability to find arguments against my irrefutable evidence of the pointlessness of large surface ships for the Russian Navy and have finally gone personal in order to put a good face on a bad game.... rather weak... you died in an unequal struggle, defeated like a Swede near Poltava, all your weak arguments went upside down..... admit your defeat and calm down

                      12. bug120560
                        bug120560
                        -1
                        30 May 2024 14: 03
                        You cannot have a serious conversation with a person who has plugged his ears and closed his eyes. It's useless. Your conceit reminded me of an old joke:

                        Borman, how are things at the front? Excellent, my Fuhrer. Borman, how are the Russians? My Fuhrer, the Russians don’t know anything about this and continue to advance.
      2. Sergey3939
        Sergey3939
        0
        23 May 2024 14: 50
        When the sea state is up to 5 points. And, no further weapons are used, everyone is waiting for a calmer state.
    2. A.A.G.
      A.A.G.
      +1
      22 May 2024 16: 25
      Somehow you are completely sad with the Russian language... It seems (obviously!) that it’s not a matter of typos!!
    3. bug120560
      bug120560
      0
      24 May 2024 16: 06
      Vladimir, let me ask you, have you yourself read the nonsense that you wrote here? You not only do not know the history of the Soviet fleet, but you also do not know the history of your country at all.
      For your information, in the entire history of its existence, NOT A SINGLE BATTLESHIP WAS BUILT IN THE USSR, which six are you talking about here?
      Admiral of the Fleet of the Soviet Union S.G. Gorshkov served as Commander-in-Chief of the USSR Navy in 1956-1985. and it was at this time that the USSR acquired nuclear submarines, BODs not inferior in power to the missile cruisers of a potential enemy, missile cruisers that have no equal today, helicopter carriers, aircraft carriers, and naval carrier-based aircraft. And what a misfortune the small rocket ships for which you so advocate, as a class, also appeared under him. By the way, the founder of the Chinese aircraft carrier fleet was also a Soviet ship. And the fact that all this heritage is wasted and squandered is the fault of completely different people, who, being unable to create something themselves, began to optimize, and simply squander the great heritage.
      1. Vladimir1155
        Vladimir1155
        0
        24 May 2024 20: 35
        the pot deceiver and his henchmen deceived the people and called the battleships 1164 cruisers, and the battleships 1144 heavy cruisers, although in terms of displacement, armament and tasks these are typical battleships, and 1144 is comparable to the Yamato..... I don’t deny the merits of the Soviet Navy in the development of nuclear submarines, but MRK I think it’s a dead-end path, as it has shown, we need more attack submarines, the 21st century after all, not gunboats = MRK
        1. bug120560
          bug120560
          0
          24 May 2024 22: 20
          You confirm once again that you do not know history, even within the school curriculum. A battleship is a class of artillery ships built for squadron combat, the main distinguishing feature of which is large-caliber cannon artillery, and not displacement. As a class of ships, battleships “died” immediately after WWII. The only country in the world where battleships as warships were preserved at the beginning of the 21st century was the USA, only these battleships were built in the 40s of the 20th century. As for the ships of projects 1144 and 1164, in terms of their armament, these are attack missile cruisers, the best in the world at the time of their creation. And the “Eagles” have no equal in their power even today.
          1. Vladimir1155
            Vladimir1155
            0
            25 May 2024 01: 06
            only this best in the world died from one missile.... although the Kug was supposed to be the “basis of air defense”, these cruisers/battleships of yours were as erroneous in their concept as the battleships that all died in Tsushima, like the Krylov linors RI, like the Yamato Bismarck and others, because they were too large and with unclear tasks, the class of battleships is much wider than you claim, not knowing the history of the fleet, for example, one of the first battleships in Russia was built by Peter the Great, battleships under the leadership of Nakhimva fought in Sinop, so your statement whose ships these are "with large-caliber guns" false

            in a broad sense, it is a ship designed to conduct combat operations as part of a squadron...., Battleship is an abbreviated name in the Russian fleet for the “battleship” class of ships, revived in 1907 under the influence of the combat use of squadron battleships in the Battle of Tsushima. There is also an opinion that in Russia in 1907 the name of this class of warships was re-established in memory of the ancient wooden sailing ships of the line. Initially, it was assumed that for the previously built Russian squadron battleships and the “dreadnought-type” battleship being designed for the Russian fleet, linear tactics of combat use as part of a squadron would be acceptable, but this was soon abandoned. In fact, in 1907, in the Russian Navy, all squadron battleships of pre-war construction, squadron battleships of the “pre-dreadnought type” completed construction during the Russo-Japanese War, and the projected squadron battleship of the “dreadnought type” were classified as “battleships” in the class of “battleship”.

            The English name battleship (literally: battle ship) - an approximate analogue of the Russian "battleship" - was similarly derived from the English term line-of-battle ship (battle line ship), which denoted a sailing battleship. In 1794, the term line-of-battle ship was abbreviated as battle ship. Subsequently, the term was used in relation to any warship. Since the late 1880s, the Royal British Navy has most often applied it unofficially to squadron ironclads. In 1892, the reclassification of the British Navy named the class of super-heavy ships with the word “battleship,” which included several particularly heavy squadron battleships.

            “Three Saints” is a sailing battleship of the Black Sea Fleet of the Russian Empire, which was part of the fleet from 1838 to 1854, a participant in the Crimean War, including the Battle of Sinop. While on duty, she mostly took part in practical voyages in the Black Sea and transporting troops, and during the defense of Sevastopol she was scuttled in the roadstead in order to block the entry of enemy ships into the roadstead.
            1. Vladimir1155
              Vladimir1155
              0
              25 May 2024 01: 17
              a ship of the line is a ship that must fight in a line.... it’s similar to the grenadiers in the army who marched in formation and fought in a line, for a long time grenadiers have not marched in battle, and in the navy everyone was building multi-billion dollar ships for duels, .... that’s all they died ingloriously, no matter what you call it, and they even proved it, so I argued that Moscow needs to be taken to the ocean and that otherwise it will die from coastal missiles, and now I argue that the concept of a large surface ship is vicious
    4. L_L
      L_L
      +1
      27 May 2024 11: 46
      Another fleet is not needed to liberate Odessa.
      A Russian president is needed to liberate Odessa.
  2. vlad127490
    vlad127490
    +2
    22 May 2024 12: 43
    Restoring the Navy takes a long time, decades. You can destroy a ship quickly, especially by drowning it. BECs are also a fleet. What kind does the Navy need? And for what purpose? Odessa can be liberated from the land side, quickly and cheaply. Here, as if the Navy has nothing to do with it. With constant monitoring of the water surface from the air, all BECs are visible both day and night. They won't go anywhere in a storm. Micro or mini submarines create detection difficulties, but that's a different story.
    1. Vladimir1155
      Vladimir1155
      -1
      22 May 2024 13: 08
      the previous criminal leadership of the Navy did not build a single aircraft or a single MPK for 30 years, and the minesweeper program was narrowed to an indecently small number, these three means are exactly what is needed to combat submarines and backs and mines ... but there are almost none of them, they are needed urgently launch the program be200 plo, mpk-karakurt, and build more minesweepers, at sea this is the main thing, and all frigates, corvettes and submarines should be on the oceans, and the basis of the fleet is submarines of all types
    2. A.A.G.
      A.A.G.
      0
      22 May 2024 16: 26
      Question: what is such a Fleet for then?
  3. Sergey Latyshev
    Sergey Latyshev
    +5
    22 May 2024 12: 57
    You can dream like this, you can dream differently, the key word is: dream.
  4. Dart2027
    Dart2027
    0
    22 May 2024 19: 02
    The key to Russia's strategic Victory is the liberation of Odessa, but it cannot be approached from the sea, and the city is protected from air attacks by a layered air defense system.

    In fact, it is regularly attacked by both UAVs and missiles.
  5. Vladimir Tuzakov
    Vladimir Tuzakov
    +2
    22 May 2024 19: 21
    To liberate Odessa and other coastal areas, there will not be the necessary fleet for two reasons, the first: the slowness and lack of initiative of the fleet command, which for two years has not even found a counter to the BEC fireships. Second, there is too little time to design, build and commission a sufficient number of the necessary ships and equipment. There remain projects in which anything can be used, even rovers on Mars. In reality, the fleet is at a crossroads; how will this search end? Obviously, in the overall system, the presence without crew ships and boats; high-precision long-range weapons, “as the main caliber,” will certainly be present.
  6. Kiril
    Kiril
    +1
    22 May 2024 21: 22
    To liberate Odessa, a fleet is not needed, an army is needed, and historically the task of the fleet is to disgrace the country lol
  7. Kentttt
    Kentttt
    0
    22 May 2024 21: 46
    Well, uh...53 Ramstein countries are not sleeping and provide not only money, but also all kinds of weapons. Even as a test...
    And there are more and more such countries...
    I dare say India has stepped up its game in the anti-Russian field and will go to Switzerland to discuss anti-Russian sanctions and decision-making.
    Well, bee. Tunisia, Morocco, South Africa, Pakistan, South Korea, Japan, Australia...
    Colombia changed its mind about sending many mercenaries due to their death and disability. But others are at the start - waiting for the banknotes to come off.
  8. VladimirNET
    VladimirNET
    -1
    22 May 2024 23: 05
    Build an MLRS on a ship (or together with a ship):
    it will be MUCH more expensive.
    Moreover, on the open sea, such an MLRS will not be able to hide.
    CONCLUSIONS:
    1. This MLRS is much more expensive.
    2. It is more easily affected, which means there is no point in the idea.
    3. It is more difficult to cover its air defense - for the same reasons.

    As for Odessa, it will be taken from the land, as was already the case in 1941-45.
    Although I’m not sure about this, the Ukrainian Reich will capitulate earlier.
  9. Flight
    Flight
    +4
    23 May 2024 03: 46
    If the government decided to return to its roots, i.e. to cattle breeding, then having your own fleet will really be superfluous. Why does a horse breeder need a fleet?
  10. ROM1077
    ROM1077
    0
    24 May 2024 15: 18
    When I wrote half a year ago that it would be good for us to install MLRS on uncrewed ships, and for example, sending 10k boats to the port of Odessa causing damage, I was downvoted, and now spatial articles on the same topic have appeared
  11. lord-palladore-11045
    lord-palladore-11045
    +2
    24 May 2024 16: 42
    Russia needs a naval fleet, not a naval fleet.
  12. anclevalico
    anclevalico
    0
    3 June 2024 10: 07
    Be that as it may, the Black Sea Fleet has actually been neutralized.
  13. trampoline instructor
    trampoline instructor
    0
    6 June 2024 08: 06
    What kind of navy does Russia need to liberate Odessa?

    Answer: To liberate Odessa, no fleet is needed at all.