The Commander-in-Chief of the Navy, Admiral Vladimir Korolev, I confess, puzzled with one figure. Speaking in St. Petersburg, at the celebrations dedicated to the 320th anniversary of the founding of the Russian fleet, he said the following:
"About 100 ships today carry out their tasks in the Far Ocean and sea zone, continuing more than three centuries of the glorious history of the Russian fleet."
The figure is weighty. And it gave rise to the quite expected reaction on both sides of the information front. Someone really rejoiced that the history of the Russian fleet, as the commander-in-chief said, continues, someone began to count in order to prove that it was a lie.
Having carefully analyzed all the arguments "for" and "against", I came to the conclusion that Comrade Admiral still cheated, leaving out of context (the journalists did not rip it out, checked on the website of the Ministry of Defense) the word "courts".
Indeed, today it is quite normal that about a hundred ships and vessels carry out the tasks assigned to them. Exactly. It is in the sea (primarily) and the Far Ocean zones.
Why exactly in that order, and not like the Queen's?
It's simple.
It is necessary to take into account our specifics. No matter how it sounds, the Russian fleet cannot be considered as a whole for many reasons. And first of all, it is the isolation of the constituent components.
Let's take as an example our eternal potential adversaries, that is, the United States. They have two operational-tactical formations.
The US Navy's Atlantic Fleet, which includes the US Navy's 2nd, 4th, and 6th Active Operational Fleets, and the US Navy's Pacific Fleet, which includes the 3rd, 5th, and 7th Active Operational Fleets.
And if necessary, the forces of the operational fleets may well block the areas of responsibility.
The Russian fleet is simply scattered across isolated theaters of military operations. In fact, these are five operational formations united by a common command. Four fleets and the Caspian flotilla. And nothing can be done about it, this is our country. Huge. And if the ground forces can still maneuver, then, as we see today, the transfer of naval forces from one theater of military operations to another is a matter of a fair amount of time.
Now about the Far Ocean coverage area.
It immediately becomes clear that this zone is exclusively under the jurisdiction of two fleets: the Northern and the Pacific. And the point is not even that the oceans are quite far from the Black Sea, but that in the Baltic and Black Sea we do not have so many ships capable of performing any tasks far from their shores.
If we talk seriously about the warships of the far sea zone, without taking into account those under repair (which is also important), then the picture will not be very pleasant. We are talking about large, I emphasize, warships. A landing ship, capable of moving a company of marines and several tanks, somehow does not look serious as an object for performing tasks in the Far Ocean zone.
Pacific Fleet:
Large surface ships: missile cruiser Varyag; destroyer "Bystry" project 956 (two more, "Burny" and "Fearless" under repair); BOD project 1155 ("Marshal Shaposhnikov", "Admiral Tributs", "Admiral Vinogradov" and "Admiral Panteleev").
A total of 7 units.
Plus submarine forces:
Strategic missile submarine cruisers (Georgy Pobedonosets, Podolsk, Ryazan, Alexander Nevsky, Vladimir Monomakh) - 5 units.
Nuclear submarines with cruise missiles (SSGN) - 3 + 2 ("Tver", "Omsk", "Tomsk" in service, "Irkutsk", "Chelyabinsk" under repair).
Nuclear submarine with missile and torpedo armament of the Shchuka-B project (Kuzbass in service, 4 boats under repair).
A total of 15 units.
In total, the Pacific Fleet will be able to deploy no more than 15 ships in the Far Ocean zone.
And this despite the fact that the Pacific Fleet is the second largest fleet after the Northern Fleet.
With regard to the Northern Fleet, the numbers are slightly higher, but in general it is unlikely that more than 25 units will be obtained.
If we add a few more DMZ (far sea zone) ships with the Black Sea Fleet and the Baltic Fleet, then we get a figure of 45-50 ships.
However, do not forget that even a combination of 3-4 surface warships requires a serious escort. In the form of auxiliary vessels. Tankers, radar reconnaissance ships, killers and others. Yes, these are not warships, but without them (especially without tankers), it is somehow poorly imagined to perform tasks in the DMZ.
Now about a simple maritime zone. Middle.
International law interprets this issue so that the territorial waters are 12 miles, followed by the exclusive economic zone (200 miles). Farther still is the shelf and the open sea. We do not take territorial waters. EEZ is closer to the topic of the maritime zone. 150 or 200 miles (for example) is already enough to say that a ship or vessel is performing a task in a sea zone. The distance is clearly not coastal.
And here we have a fairly large number of ships capable of performing combat missions. There is no point in listing the lists, as with large ones, it is enough to name the classes.
These are small missile ships (projects "Gadfly", "Sivuch", "Buyan"), small anti-submarine ships of project 1124 ("Albatross"), sea minesweepers (projects "Aquamarine", "Rubin"), missile boats. With a cruising range of 1,500 to 4,000 miles. And we do not have as many ships of these classes as we would like, but we do.
And, if we, using the head, simply combine the ships DMZ and MZ, then at the output we can get a figure that even exceeds that voiced by Korolev.
It turns out that, if we bear in mind the possible tasks of our fleet in the DMZ, then yes, 100 ships and vessels is a real figure, and here Korolev did not lie at all. So, I was lying.
Another question: is it necessary?
What have our ships forgotten in the DMZ, and even in such quantities? What goals can they pursue there and what tasks can they perform?
"Demonstrate presence"? Translated, it is "waste of taxpayer money", right? Make "official friendly visits"? No, I agree, "Peter the Great" looked in the Panama Canal, and on the roadstead of Caracas, there is no dispute. But in our reality, it would be possible to drive (if it bothers much) and less crap.
If you really look at our defensive concept, then the creation of a fleet that in the DMZ will be able to oppose the US fleet somewhere in the Mariana Islands or the Chinese fleet in the Yellow Sea is not so necessary.
The "smearing" of our naval forces, due to our geographical position in the first place, provides for comprehensive counteraction to a potential enemy, relying not so much on the forces of the fleet as on the forces of all our armed forces.
Therefore, it is necessary to strengthen the Northern and Pacific fleets, because it is there that it is possible (to a lesser extent in the Northern) to counteract a potential enemy. But if we are talking about playing "on defense", then we really need an integrated approach.
So that the forces of the same fleets of the United States, when approaching our borders, would meet not only our ships, but also the aerospace forces, air defense and tactical missiles. Then, in principle, we are not afraid of any fleet.
Thus, the figure 100, voiced by Korolev, is twofold. Either very little, or more than enough, if we are talking specifically about the tasks in the DMZ. It all depends on what angle you look at.
If you look exactly from the angle that is voiced in our defense doctrine, then, in general, it is enough for training crews on long voyages and the designation of "presence".
True, this does not negate the naval problems that we have today. But that's a completely different story.
And I would like to end today's story, albeit not on the most optimistic note, but to reassure those who shout that we have no ships. As practice shows, we have ships. Yes, not as much as we really would like. Need more, I agree. And I think there will be ships. But not in order to “denote presence” at the devil on the kulichi, far away, but in order to carry out real tasks of protecting the security of our borders.
