In general, reflective articles about how important a strong fleet is for Russia appear systematically and regularly. Perhaps the frequency of occurrence is influenced by the proximity of budget readings for the next year, but this is only an assumption.
For the most part, these are ordinary jingoes about the fact that Russia has two allies: the army and the navy. But there are also really smart articles with a balanced and well-reasoned approach. But even with such materials, one often wants to argue, especially if in them political aspirations begin to dominate common sense.
This is another article that caught my eye, and, on the one hand, while agreeing with many of the things given in it, I strongly want to challenge the conclusions of this article.
There will be no strong Russia without a strong fleet.
The author is Vladimir Vasilievich Puchnin, captain of the 1st rank (retired), doctor of military sciences, professor, professor of the department of the All-Union Scientific Center of the Navy "Naval Academy". That immediately excludes him from the number of "experts", and the text shows that he is a person who deeply understands the processes taking place in the country. However, it is very, very difficult to agree with some of the messages, and therefore it is worth asking a few questions.
In his article, Puchnin correctly notes that the gap between Russia and the leading shipbuilding countries in terms of finished tonnage is more than 100 times. And today in the country, unfortunately, machine-tool building, machine building, the production of electronic devices and even individual components are in a very poor condition.
All our shipyards can process 400 thousand tons of steel per year. China has three shipyards, each of which is capable of processing over 1 million tons of steel. The Koreans have a shipyard (it is clear that "Hand"), processing 2 million tons.
The total share of shipbuilding in Russian GDP is 0.8%. Large-scale shipbuilding is going through not exactly the best times, we have big problems with the construction of large-tonnage ships.
And if we are talking about the so-called import substitution, then it is in shipbuilding that there is complete order with it. The share of foreign components in civil shipbuilding ranges from 40% to 85%, for military shipbuilding - from 50% to 60%
Are we talking about some kind of tasks in the World Ocean? Yes, it doesn't look very good.
Despite the fact that the sea border of Russia is not what it is, it is, let's say, even in abundance. Two oceans, thirteen seas, the length is almost equal to the length of the equator …
It would seem that Russia is a sea power?
The share of shipments by ships flying all flags for Russia amounted to 6% of the total traffic in 2019. It is difficult to say how much of this amount was made by Russian courts, but it is clear that even less.
But this is a separate conversation, we are talking about the military fleet.
And with the military fleet, although it is somewhat better than with the civilian, that is, at the very least, something is being built, but all the same it is very far from the epithets "strong" and "great". The words "old" and "rebuilt" are very suitable, since many ships (especially large ones) sailed under the flag of the USSR.
The best example of the "modernity" of our fleet is the TAVKR "Admiral Nakhimov". Which in 2022 will have to go into operation and thereby significantly improve … In general, it does not matter what it will improve. It is important that launched in April 1986, the ship entered service in 1988 and served until 1997, after which it got up for repairs. And to our time it continues to remain there.
23 years in repair - this is the most that neither is the indicator. It is clear that in 2022, 25 years after the start of repairs and upgrades, it will be almost a star cruiser with all the ensuing consequences.
I completely agree with Puchnin that building a fleet is a very difficult task. Here many factors come into play: the possibilities of the country's budget, the possibilities of designers, the possibilities of shipbuilding enterprises.
And the main thing is that the construction of such a huge organism as a military fleet should not bend the economy to the ground. It was not for nothing that they said in the last century: if you want to destroy the economy of a small country, give it a cruiser.
In our case, we are talking not only about a cruiser, but also about aircraft carriers, landing ships, cover ships, and so on.
Thus, the construction of the fleet is becoming an element of national policy. And here the most interesting thing begins: the clash of desires and possibilities. When loud phrases about a particular need are faced with engines, steel, working hands and other components.
I will allow myself a quote from Puchnin:
The National Maritime Policy is an integral part of the policy of the state and society, which is aimed at defining, implementing and protecting national interests in the World Ocean and creating favorable conditions for the maritime activities of the Russian Federation in the interests of its sustainable socio-economic development.
It is completely incomprehensible what this is about. No, the fact that "maritime activities", say, for the transportation of the same LNG to the United States from our northern terminal will have a positive impact on socio-economic development, this is understandable. It is unclear what unfavorable conditions for maritime activities shackle Russia's hands. Apart from the absence of ships of the merchant and passenger fleet, nothing comes to mind. But what does the navy have to do with it?
Everything seems to be transparent. The merchant fleet makes money for the state. Rybolovetsky provides food. The military man guards and protects all this, if necessary. If necessary.
Whether such a need arises or not, in principle, one must have a fleet in any case. But it is even better when the concept of using this fleet is clearly explained. Which will cost not billions of rubles, but much larger sums.
And this is where differences of opinion begin. According to Puchnin:
In accordance with the currently valid conceptual and regulatory documents, the national interests of the Russian Federation in the World Ocean in modern geopolitical conditions and for the long term are:
- ensuring the inviolability of the sovereignty, independence, state and territorial integrity of the Russian Federation, extending to the internal sea waters, the territorial sea, their bottom and bowels, as well as to the airspace above them.
Agree. For this, today MRKs with modern missiles, submarines, coastal anti-ship missile systems, and so on are being built. We really have something to defend. And today it would be nice to have as many specialized ships as possible for this. From missile boats to corvettes.
… - ensuring the sovereign rights and jurisdiction of the Russian Federation in the exclusive economic zone and on the continental shelf of the Russian Federation.
Well, the same thing, in principle.
… - ensuring the freedom of the high seas, including freedom of navigation, flights, fishing, marine scientific research, laying of submarine cables and pipelines, the right to study and develop the mineral resources of the international seabed area.
Good. The freedom of the high seas is ensured by the relevant regulations. And politics. There is no need to look far for examples, the ongoing indistinct swarming around Nord Stream 2 indicates that the entire Baltic Fleet is not in a position to exert the slightest influence on the bans of other countries on the laying of the pipeline.
Moreover, in the story of the SP-2, it turned out to be much more important to have not strike ships, but an elementary modern pipe-laying vessel. Which turned out to be the only one for all of Russia and which had to be dragged across half the world from the Far East.
… - ensuring guaranteed access of the Russian Federation to global transport communications in the World Ocean.
Okay, but here I would like to ask a question: who in general can prevent the Russian Federation (or, perhaps, ships flying the Russian flag?) From guaranteed use of communications? The point is completely incomprehensible. Here again, everything is regulated by legal documents, and if the world community suddenly decides that Russian ships have nothing to do in the World Ocean, then, forgive me, no fleet will help.
… - consolidation of the status of a great maritime power for the Russian Federation, whose activities in the World Ocean are aimed at maintaining strategic stability, strengthening influence and mutually beneficial partnerships in the conditions of the emerging polycentric world.
What does this mythical status of a "great sea power" give? Well, other than an excuse to shout about it from the TV screen or on the pages of the relevant media? Nothing. This status will not lead to anything and will not give anything. Moreover, in our country you can reward anything, the whole question is how interesting it is to the rest of the world community.
Considering that this will not increase the cargo turnover and fish catch by an iota, Russia can be given the status of a "great maritime power" right now. No one in the world is hot or cold from this.
- it looks just ridiculous. There is only one fleet in the world to do such things - the American one. The United States can afford to strengthen its influence and everything else. I would say, of course, that where the US fleet appears, stability comes to a complete end, but let it look like strategic destabilization.
The main thing is that the Americans can afford it with their navy. Catch them up to parity? Fantastic.
And the last thing. Improving "partnerships" with warships is interesting. With whom can partnerships be improved in this way? And how long?
Strange statements, strange approach to business.
… - development of the Arctic zone of the Russian Federation as a strategic resource base and its rational use;
- development of the Northern Sea Route as a globally competitive national transport communication of the Russian Federation on the world market …
Okay, I agree that the Arctic should be kept under supervision. But in the Arctic, no one can create threats to us, except, perhaps, American submarines. This means that the presence of some classes of ships (which we will talk about at the end) is completely optional there.
… - safe operation of offshore pipeline systems of hydrocarbon raw materials, which are strategically important in the foreign economic activity of the Russian Federation.
It is clear here. More precisely, it is clear what, but it is not clear how. The only thing that can be seen is warships plying over the pipes lying at a half-kilometer depth. How can a subsea pipeline be interfered with? Throw depth charges, or what? And how is it then to be guarded and defended?
It looks frivolous. Fighting ships, which, at the expense of taxpayers, will protect Gazprom's private pipelines from mythical terrorists. Laughter through tears.
And all this, excuse me, is served under the sauce of "realizing Russia's national interests in the World Ocean." And for this it is necessary to spend trillions of rubles.
Seriously? In terms of amounts, yes. In terms of tasks, no.
Move on.
Further, we should consider with the help of what these tasks should be implemented.
Puchnin believes that.
This means that it is necessary to build ships that are not included, or rather, go beyond the specified framework.
A necessary condition for the implementation and guaranteed protection of the national interests of the Russian Federation in the World Ocean is the presence of such a naval potential that can provide the right and opportunities for a naval presence and demonstration of force in strategically important, including remote, areas of the World Ocean."
Well, actually, the cherry on the cake. The possibility of a naval presence in the regions and show-off, that is, a "demonstration of the flag" somewhere else.
This stupid nonsense, "demonstration of the flag" somewhere in "key points of the world" such as Libya or Venezuela, is nothing more than a simple waste of budget funds. Mediocre and worthless.
Okay, if a museum exhibit of the Soviet era is dragged around the world on an atomic drive, at least it is not very expensive. But if an aircraft carrier trough on oil boilers spoils the atmosphere in different parts of the world, this is sad. And deservedly causes legitimate laughter and trolling on social networks.
And that, in fact, is what Puchnin wrote the whole article for.
A necessary condition for the implementation and guaranteed protection of the national interests of the Russian Federation … we need surface ships of the far sea and ocean zones, including destroyers, universal amphibious assault and aircraft-carrying ships, capable of appearing at the right time and in the right area of the World Ocean in accordance with the changing geopolitical and military-strategic landscape …
That is, in the name of some completely vague ideas, it is necessary to spend huge sums on the appearance of aircraft carriers, destroyers and UDC. And they will defend obscure interests around the globe.
Actually, this is where we can finish. And not because we don’t have the money to build such ships, we don’t have the opportunity.
We need to start with whether we can even build such ships in the quantity that Puchnin talks about. Can our economy, which, to put it mildly, do not shine with indicators and, most importantly, with opportunities, master the construction of ships without prejudice to the country?
So, the economy and the budget. And ships.
Puchnin believes that by 2035 our fleet may have the following composition:
- strategic missile submarines - 8-10 units;
- multipurpose nuclear submarines - 16-18 units;
- multipurpose diesel and non-nuclear submarines - 24-27 units;
- aircraft carriers (aircraft-carrying cruisers) - 3 units;
- ships of the far sea and ocean zones (cruisers, destroyers, frigates) - 26-28 units;
- universal amphibious assault ships (UDC) - 3-4 units;
- large landing ships - 11-14 units;
- ships of the near sea zone (corvettes, small missile and patrol ships, minesweepers) - 77–83 units.
With the list, all questions disappear. For there is fiction - not the most scientific, unfortunately.
And it begins in the line "aircraft carriers / aircraft carrying cruisers." One, as it were, is still there, where Puchnin is going to take two more - the question.
Cruisers, destroyers, frigates, BOD - 20. But we are silent that the main majority are 30 years old and above.
UDC. After the "Mistrals" the movements continue, but even in the "mistral" epoch they did not explain so clearly to us where and, most importantly, whom we would strike with these ships and where to land the troops. The large landing craft came in handy in the "Syrian Express", after which the floating veterans of the Soviet era, for the most part, played in the repair.
This "strategy" is estimated by Puchnin at $ 11 billion. In year. And half of it will be spent on the construction of new ships. That is, if the whole figure in rubles is 830 billion rubles, then for ships - 400 billion rubles a year. Well, for the entire program - over 4 trillion until 2035.
A very dubious figure.
But this is not the saddest thing. It's sad to read this:
The specified naval composition of the Navy, in which the share of modern weapons will be at least 75-80%, is capable of providing a permanent naval presence in three or more key regions of the World Ocean of a grouping of forces with a total composition of: one aircraft carrier, at least one UDC, up to six ships of the distant sea and ocean zone, at least four multipurpose nuclear and up to five non-nuclear submarines. Additionally, in the waters of the Black, Baltic and Japanese Seas (in the near sea zone), have at least 10 corvettes and small missile ships with long-range precision weapons in constant readiness.
When a person who seems to be related to the Navy, knows it from the inside and firsthand, writes this, it is, I repeat, sad. Because the presence "at key points" of three squadrons with aircraft carriers is already unscientific fantasy.
And on this you can already end the review. Because it's not worth taking projects seriously in our time. Yes, there are “hawks”, unfortunately, in any country. But not everywhere they are admitted to the budget. Fortunately for those countries where they are not allowed, everything is fine there.
Of course, we also have arms-rattles from among the sofa experts. They will, yes, they will be tickled by the vision of squadrons under the Russian flag in the "key points" of the World Ocean. Only hardly anyone will be able to clearly explain what these squadrons will do there. How will they "effectively counter military threats in the oceans."
Well, yes, the standard set of loud phrases about nuclear and non-nuclear deterrence of the enemy, the provision of some "potential interests" and so on.
In general, there would be money, but on what nonsense to spend it, our "experts" will always figure out.
Okay, money can be found. As always, impose taxes and levies, urge once again to "tighten their belts", scare the "stirring of enemy hordes" at our borders and stuff like that.
The accusation of unpatriotism should already follow, but …
And even if money is found in such volumes, where will we build? Forgive us, even if the city of Nikolaev is annexed to Russia with a fight, everything is already destroyed and collapsed there. But we did not know how to build aircraft-carrying cruisers anywhere else. Alas. And there is no need to broadcast that now an aircraft carrier with a capacity of 100,000 tons will be built in Kerch. They will not build. There is no one. And there is nothing.
Roughly the same with the ships of the far ocean zone. Yes, by 2022 they promised to withdraw Admiral Nakhimov from the eternal repair, but we'll see. When the repairs are finished, then we'll talk, while it's too early.
And, in fact, than dreaming about squadrons plying key points in the ocean, it would be better to think about where to get engines for destroyer frigates. And then "Admiral Kharlamov" has been standing since 2004, restless, because, as always, there are no engines and not even expected.
However, there is someone to read about destroyers without it.
Russian military fleet. A sad look into the future: Russian destroyers.
As a result, I express my deepest regret that such unscientific but fantastic materials still appear in our press. The thought creeps in that they appear for a reason, namely because someone is interested in allocating huge sums for the "development and construction" of nuclear aircraft carriers, nuclear destroyers and other nonsense.
It is clear that the higher the amount, the more you can saw off and gnaw off. It's clear. But how to build three aircraft-carrying ships in the conditions of modern Russia is completely incomprehensible to me. And it is difficult to understand people who speak quite seriously about the need to implement such plans.
Russia naturally needs a navy. One that will protect the shores and coastal areas from any encroachments. The fleet that will actually threaten to strike a potential enemy with nuclear warheads.
But to play expensive toys such as cruisers-aircraft carriers … Let's all the same take seriously the issues of "flag demonstrations". And let's estimate how economically profitable they are.
Sorry, but an old ship showing a flag to third countries like Venezuela is not a "great naval power" level. It is laughter through bitter tears.
