The entry into service of the next "Virginia" and "Arleigh Burke" is met with a statement that Russia does not need to compete with the primordial maritime powers in terms of the number of ships.
The continental power does not need a fleet
The continental country does not need a fleet and there is no need to have many ships. The thesis is good, correct, but initially contains a mistake. "Continental Power" unexpectedly for everyone has four fleets in all parts of the world!
And this is where the fun begins.
Well, not by number, but by skill. If the fleet of our "partners" is regularly reinforced with ships of the 1st rank, it would be fair to see the construction of at least one destroyer for the Russian Navy, every few years. How justified is this expectation? In my opinion, more than! Otherwise, when the scoreboard is 60: 0, there can be no talk of any real rivalry.
The reports about the increase in the presence of the Navy in the oceans are sharply at variance with reality. The number of ships does not correspond to the statements.
The fleet is primarily ships, not talk. Estimate the scale of rearmament of other countries over the past 5 years. And these are far from the most significant participants!
The Italian fleet has been replenished with 5 frigates (6,700 tons) with long-range air defense / missile defense systems. An important technical aspect that determines the complexity of structures and their significance. Having fulfilled the FREMM plan, the Italians immediately laid down the next generation of frigates (destroyers) - the PPA class. With such a pace and adherence to the schedules, by the mid-2020s, the number of modern Italian ships of rank 1 will boldly cross the line of 15 units.
In distant sunny India for the period 2015-2019. 2 Type 15A missile destroyers were commissioned and 4 more larger and more advanced Type 15B Vishakapatnam (8000 tons) were laid down. By now, they have all been launched.
Britain, which has long lost the ambitions of a great maritime power, in the period 2015-2019. commissioned the aircraft carrier Queen Elizabeth and a pair of high-speed integrated supply ships of the Tide type (39,000 tons). There was no active construction of destroyers during this period - at the turn of the 2010s. Royal Navy has already received six Daring. The next generation of rank 1 warships should be City-class frigates (8000 tons), the lead of which was laid down in 2017.
Honorable 10th place?
The domestic fleet is somewhere on the level of the fleets of regional powers and compact European navies. All that we have for the past decade in the lists of newly arrived ships of the 1st rank (or included in such, in the absence of others) - 5 frigates of the "Admiral's series".
The Navy is steadfastly holding its positions only at the expense of submarine forces, but it is too early to talk about any "recovery" and "growing Russian threat". During the previous "five-year" plan, not a single nuclear submarine entered the combat structure.
The British fleet for the same period was replenished with two Estute-class nuclear-powered submarines.
In 2016, the Indian Navy received the Arihant, its first-born nuclear submarine, with great difficulty. Along with "Arihant", the Navy operates the Russian multipurpose submarine K-152 "Nerpa", leased for 10 years. The issue of financing the refurbishment with the subsequent transfer of the next submarine to the Indian Navy (probably the K-322 Kashalot, which has been at the Amur Shipyard for many years awaiting a decision on its fate) is being considered. The lag in technology is offset by a keen desire to have a modern fleet. Indians use every opportunity, and, to their credit, they achieve the set results.
Italy has never had nuclear powered ships. But she is the only one among the parties mentioned who has the technology of building non-nuclear submarines with an air-independent engine. Modern submarines of the "Todaro" type, being built at the "Fincantieri" shipyard, are quite advanced combat vehicles that are not inferior to nuclear-powered submarines on a limited scale in the Mediterranean Sea.
In this context, it is not necessary to mention how many submarines the leading maritime powers managed to commission. In order to avoid falling under the article on "insult to the senses."
We were on time, but then we were late …
In the world, there is a tendency to reduce the time for building ships - ahead of schedule, which is facilitated by an increase in labor productivity, coupled with the desire of contractors to quickly fulfill their obligations and make a profit.
"Currently, the shipyard is building the UDC somewhat ahead of schedule and does not exclude the transfer of it to the Turkish Navy in 2020 instead of the planned 2021."
(News on the progress of construction of the L 400 multipurpose landing craft, Anadolu, Turkey.)
However, our USC has its own traditions, from which it is not going to retreat in the future. Moving any timeline - only forward!
The legend of this story is as follows. "Admiral Kasatonov" was laid down in 2009, launched in 2014 and since then from year to year "strengthens" the combat strength of the Navy. Lies in time and shifts to the right. Corvette "Thundering" has been under construction since 2012. As if it’s about time - seven years for a near-zone patrol ship. Another corvette - "Mercury" was laid in 2016, and it was clearly included in this list by mistake. Its planned entry into service is 2021.
The multipurpose 4th generation submarine K-561 "Kazan", the second in the series after the lead "Severodvinsk". Eight years from laying to launch (2017). Three more years for completion and testing. The transfer to the fleet has been postponed from 2019 to 2020.
The construction time is not just long. They are irrational. For such results, the entire top management of USC can be held accountable. And there will be real terms, equal to the terms for which the ships were built.
No excuses accepted
I believe there will be those who will say: trials are important. You cannot transfer unfinished and untested ships to the fleet.
But, gentlemen … this is the case. If we build ships and submarines for ten years, and then carry out tests for years, military equipment will inevitably become obsolete before entering service. We can confidently say that SUCH construction / completion / testing times are a vicious practice and there is no positive meaning in it.
However, there are more abrupt examples. MRK "Karakurt", 800 tons of displacement, they plan to build for three to four years, with a constant increase in terms! Despite the fact that they do not have ANYTHING. Neither expensive and complex air defense / missile defense systems, which would allow “to defeat a flying bullet with another bullet”, nor megawatt radars, nor complex and sensitive hydroacoustics. What to expect from 800 tons?
The amazing paradoxes accompanying the implementation of military shipbuilding projects (and the defense industry as a whole) have their explanation in the form of a criminal article. And this is not "betrayal." This is the more commonplace article 160, Misappropriation or Waste.
Simple explanation of complex matters
It has long been clear that in the structure of the defense industry there are no orders and instructions, there are only orders. Managers of all levels carry out orders from their superiors with the sole intention of increasing the share of their own profits in the implementation of each project. If the entire amount of allocated funds goes to profit, then it doesn't matter - the project will simply be abandoned. And they will proceed to the consideration of the next "commercial proposal".
“Effective managers” have no other motivation. This is how they see their task. A responsibility? They don't abandon their own.
Incredible construction time. Lack of serial units. As for the fleet, there is a disparity in the types of ships and weapons against the background of irresponsible promises about the most incredible, fantastic weapons. Who will be responsible for the words about the creation of 200-node torpedoes with artificial intelligence, about the development of fifth-generation submarines (when in practice they barely mastered a couple of 4th-generation submarines), a 9-fly cruise missile and other pseudo-scientific nonsense?..
When the deadline approaches, the usual excuses follow. Lack of shipyards, lack of technology, lack of personnel, and finally, lack of funds. It looks frivolous.
A shipyard is not a unique natural phenomenon
The same shipyard is not a unique natural phenomenon like the Crimean peninsula. Shipyards tend to be built in a fairly short time.
Russia is able to build a cosmodrome in the middle of the Siberian wilderness and the Zenit-Arena stadium with a moving field weighing 7,000 tons. But for some reason it turns out to be powerless before the construction of a 300-meter slip or a covered boathouse with an overhead crane. On the territory of already existing shipbuilding facilities with all communications. Fortunately, domestic enterprises of this kind do not have problems with the territory - they were all created according to wartime calculations, with a dispersed infrastructure over an area 10 times larger than that of foreign military shipyards.
Instead, for 30 years they have been talking about the remaining shipyards in Nikolaev, "the only place where aircraft carriers could be built."
Or about the lack of personnel. Of course they are not. Why a lot of personnel with the indicated volumes of purchases of military equipment? That the Su-57, that the Armata, that the superfrigate Gorshkov. A handful of specialists will successfully cope with the delivered volume of work.
All these problems do not exist. There is only a reluctance to produce "unparalleled" equipment in any noticeable volume. Because it will cut the rate of return.
There are prospects, the forecast is positive
Any plans and expert calculations based on them - how many ships will be in the fleet at the current rate of renewal by the year 20 - do not make sense. By the way, those calculations look very bad. Only the calculations of Roskosmos about the base on the Moon are worse.
Experts believe that if a corvette or a frigate under existing conditions is built on average for 7-10 years, then the destroyer "Leader" will be built even longer. Too long to ensure timely replacement of the decommissioned rank 1 ships. And the timing of the construction of an aircraft carrier may generally drag on until the end of the century.
Gentlemen, this is nothing. The current pace of construction of frigate corvettes is an imitation of activity. A superpower fleet is not built like that. The pace of construction is artificially slowed down / interrupted / stopped for well-known (already mentioned) systemic reasons.
Enough time has passed to realize that all the promises and plans of recent decades have not just been broken. They were literally turned inside out!
The announcement of the appearance of 8 Ash trees before 2020 sounded too unrealistic at once. But hardly anyone could have imagined then that, according to the results of the great and terrible state defense order, by the indicated date in the current composition of the Navy there will be only ONE multipurpose boat of the 4th generation. The same K-560 Severodvinsk.
This is an imitation of activity
The laws of logic are implacable - if you do not build ships, they will not exist. The fleet will eventually thin out to the size of a coastal flotilla capable of performing border and environmental protection functions. And then it will disappear altogether. The same will happen if you simulate rearmament, transferring one ship to the Navy every few years. For a country with four fleets and global ambitions!
But this is if they continue to speak nice words instead of deeds.
If key figures in the state and the military-industrial complex really decide that the country needs a military fleet, this fleet will be built at a completely different pace. And it will definitely be built! We have all the necessary capabilities, means and technologies, and will only develop in the future. And if you need foreign help and components, we will not be shy. Those who achieve their goals are not judged. They are respected.
On that upbeat note, let me take my leave, giving readers the opportunity to express their opinions.
