David Ax of The National Interest put out a very original analyst: “Watch Out! Russian Submarines Are Prowling Off the U. S. Coast.
On the one hand, nix, the Russians came and I will not save them from them, on the other - the people, do not panic, everything will be hamburger and cola.
But American admirals are not very happy with the increase in activity of Russian submarines off their coast.
This is fine. This is, in general, logical. You just need to remember the "good old" times of the Cold War, when shoals of Soviet submarines scared away US aircraft carriers, dragged around inside warrants, in general - behaved like the masters of the oceans.
No wonder. The location of the United States itself is twofold. On the one hand, the country covers the entire continent. Okay, not all, but I'm sure no one will reproach me for the fact that I do not consider Canada a country that can say something like that across the opinion of the United States. Well, Mexico too.
So the United States is fully insured against conflicts on its soil. So far, there is no one in the world who is capable of arranging an amphibious operation on the country's coast.
But to come closer under water, swim up and dash off with something very heavy, nuclear, and with a multiple warhead … Yes, so that without a chance to intercept …
Hey, aircraft carriers, how are you? Nothing?
The idea of floating airfields projected into the ocean and keeping anyone out of range is a very clever concept. But for a nuclear-powered ship that goes at a depth of half a kilometer, and in case of great success, it can only be detected by a hydrophone. Airplanes, satellites, something else …
In general, for a submarine this is so …
That is why the American military perceived the appearance of Russian submarines near their shores very ambiguously.
And buddy David began to console his readers. Say, do not worry, the Russians will swim and go home. And in ten years they will have no submarines left to seriously threaten the United States.
The question is for those readers who are in the compartment: who will say how many of our nuclear-powered ships are needed to seriously puzzle the Americans?
If one is in Yellowstone and the other is in Washington?
Last year, the Americans spotted eight of our boats. And two in test outputs. So the Americans have reason to believe that Russia has doubled the number of submarine exits. And this cannot but be annoying. Because in order to counter these submarines, in theory, it is necessary to triple the number of US Navy ships. To search for needles (submarines) in a haystack (ocean).
In fact, things are not so bad. Eight of our submarines took part in the exercises, and two were on a test campaign.
But these two months, during which the exercises were going on, greatly worried the American naval command. Naturally, no one in the United States believed in the defensive nature of the exercises in the ocean, they do not defend themselves near the shores of the enemy, albeit a potential one, which means that the intentions of the Russians should be regarded exclusively as a manifestation of aggression of the highest level.
This is a very weighty statement. And it would be even cooler if Ax did not cite some data obtained from … sources in the Norwegian intelligence as an argument.
Well, listen, it's not at all serious! To refer to the intelligence of Norway, which has been looking for Russian boats in its waters for so many years and cannot find the ONLY submarine of the Baltic Fleet - well, really, it is not serious at all!
However, the commander of the Second Fleet (urgently revived from the reserve in 2018) Andrew Lewis said that "the east coast is no longer a safe haven for American ships." In February 2020.
Well, I disagree with the admiral. On the western side, you can also throw someone, very much even possible. Guys will come from Vladivostok, if necessary. And the fleet, which has simply been in reserve since 2011, is unlikely to become such an effective tool.
“We are seeing an ever-growing number of Russian submarines deployed in the Atlantic, and these submarines are more capable than ever to be deployed for longer periods of time, with more lethal weapon systems,” Lewis said.
No, it's logical! And why then do you need to drive boats into the oceans, teach and train crews, develop new weapons systems? No, of course, it would be nice if rowing galleys attacked the US AUG, but forgive me - we have what we have.
“Our new reality is that when our sailors go to sea, they can expect to operate in a contested space as soon as they leave Norfolk. Our ships can no longer expect to operate in a safe location on the east coast, or simply cross the Atlantic unhindered to operate elsewhere.”
And this is said by the admiral, who has 6 cruisers, 21 destroyers, 8 strategic submarines, 15 multipurpose attack submarines and 13 patrol ships under his command. And a bunch of completely new and powerful Poseidon anti-submarine aircraft.
Who would have checked the admiral's trousers … Well, who said that the American Navy is simply obliged to feel dry and comfortable anywhere in the World Ocean?
Apparently, Admiral Lewis really scared the public with his statements, and it was necessary for the gallant employee of "Interestov" Aks to calm the public.
Say, nothing, Moscow is simply not able to maintain the current pace and very soon they simply will not have any submarines left to keep the entire American continent in suspense.
Russia currently has 62 submarines of all classes. (In fact, there are 68 of them, the data of the Americans is for some reason a little outdated.)
11 of them are strategic with ballistic missiles, 26 are nuclear with cruise missiles, the rest are multipurpose. We don't take 22 diesel-electric ones, these are melee weapons. There are 59 in total.
The other nine are special-purpose boats that are not intended to take part in combat operations.
The American expert says that the boats are old, built in the 80s and 90s, which means that they will soon have a final. I disagree, the age for nuclear-powered ships is not very critical. Especially looked, and what about the Stars and Stripes?
It's okay there. The most recent "Ohio" was built in 1997, and the first - in 1984. And the new "Columbias" will go in the 30s.
And who would be talking about old boats …
Meanwhile, once every two years, the Borey, which can be called whatever you like, but not an old boat, comes into service. Considering that there are actually 4 Boreyevs in service, the fifth (Prince Oleg) should be commissioned this year, and 4 more are under construction …
Considering that the construction of boats, which are part of the nuclear triad, has been given the highest priority, and besides, we have not forgotten how to build them …
So I would not be in such a hurry with conclusions.
But The National Interest is confident that by the end of the 1920s, at the most by the beginning of the 1930s, 12 submarines will remain in the Russian Navy. The rest will either be completely out of order, or become outdated so much that it will be pointless to keep them in the fleet.
Where such confidence? Maybe we don't know something like that? Let's take a look. Moreover, the American colleagues have at their disposal a terrible figure of 28 submarines. Everything that Russian shipbuilding can do in 10 years.
No, we have a lot of problems in the construction of ships. But not enough to condemn the submarine fleet.
So let's see.
It makes no sense to take diesel submarines for the reason I already wrote about. So just figure 15 boats minimum and 20 maximum, if they don't disrupt the program - and that's it.
We look at the nuclear-powered ships.
Project 949A "Antey". 8 boats. The first boats came to the navy in the late 1980s. The last Antey was put into service in 1996. Six of them have been renovated and modernized. Two are due to be updated by 2022. Comparable to Ohio? Quite.
Project 671RTMK "Pike". 2 boats. They entered service in the early 90s, modernized.
Project 945 "Barracuda". 2 boats. It seems that they decided to upgrade to the level of the fourth generation. The boats are old (1983 and 1986), but apparently there is confidence in the correctness of the actions.
Project 945A "Condor". 2 boats. They will also modernize. Actually, that's right, a titanium case is a titanium case.
Project 971 "Pike-B". 12 boats. Yes, unlike the Barracudas and Condors, the hull is steel instead of titanium. Therefore, it is controversial, the boats are newer, they will work more.
Project 885 "Ash". One boat. In service since 2014. And two are planned for 2020.
Of course, unlike the American Navy, it is quite motley, unfortunately. If you look at the way the Americans look, then yes, the first candidates for analysis are two Pikes. And that's all. Some other, well, only in case of deterioration, but I do not have such data, so use a pitchfork on the water to calculate how many boats can be written off in the next 10 years.
Perhaps some will write off. But in reality it is hardly a lot, because it would be worth pulling to the last. Let's take that there are 20 boats left. If we add all those under construction to this number, we get the same figure 28.
However, we also have a second class of nuclear submarines. SSBN. Suddenly so …
Ryazan, the last of the 667BRD Kalmar project, will, of course, be written off. The ship built in 1982 will not live long, alas. Plus "wet" missile launch - well, after all, yesterday.
Project 667BDRM "Dolphin". 6 boats. They will still live, as they managed to re-equip them with modern Sineva missiles. But it is the Dolphins that should replace the Boreas by 2030. Which is quite possible.
Project 941 "Shark". One boat. It was reequipped for the Bulava missile, and it was tested on it, and it may still live on. Although it is possible that Severstal and Arkhangelsk will be modernized and put into operation. It is not excluded. I would be very happy about that.
Project 955 "Borey". Three boats. It is planned to build seven more cruisers of the modernized project 955A by 2027.
Thus, we get 10 (+9).
We put all the nuclear-powered ships in one pile and get 38 ships. This is a little more than what David Ax predicts. Well, obviously not 12. But the decrease, of course, will take place.
Summarizing everything, we find that in the most negative development of the situation, 37 submarines will be operated in the Navy. This, of course, is more than predicted by NI - 12. But the reduction in the composition will still be significant.
If everything planned is built, then we will have 41 nuclear submarines. This is a minus of the Dolphins, who did not understand. Now there are 46 of them. In my opinion, the difference is not very big.
That is, there is a difference in quantity, of course, but let's take a sober view: it will be partially compensated by quality. And given how we are doing with the construction of nuclear submarines, and it is better than with diesel ones, there is no particular cause for concern.
The death howl was picked up by David's colleague and editor of another publication, Warships International Fleet Review, Ian Ballantyne. He also said a lot of warm words to our submarine forces.
“Most attack submarines date from the 1980s and 90s. There are still quite a few old, Soviet ships carrying the main load, both attack submarines and ballistic missile boats. How many more of these old ships can be sent to sea, awaiting the arrival of new ones into service is a moot point.
The time will come when most of the Russian submarine forces in both the Northern Fleet and the Pacific Fleet - the most important naval formations - will cease to function, leaving huge gaps."
Well, blessed are the believers …
In fact, without the hats, the Russian submarine fleet is a more serious and reliable thing. We know how to build submarines, we know how to use them. And it was not for nothing that admirals in the United States began to feel themselves not very comfortable. There is logic in their behavior. It is very difficult to keep a country intact, which is very easy to get close to a missile submarine cruiser.
But just waiting for the development of a positive scenario in our country is possible only when the staff will decide everything. When the staff from the very bottom to the very top will not steal fuel from emergency generators, will not allow fires on ships being repaired, will not continue to sink docks and ships out of the blue, will not delay the construction of ships for several years.
Then everything will be fine with us, for fear of the enemies. I would very much like to.
