It's nice to read intelligent people. And the smart ones are even nicer. In my opinion, Robert Farley is one of the latter. That is, smart. Having carefully studied his article on the problems of the Russian fleet Russia Is Not The Soviet Union (But It Has the Same Navy Nightmares), given that for us this is also a very burning topic, it is strange, but I agreed with Farley's opinion. Almost.
The devil, as you know, is in the details. And there are a lot of details. But it's worth going in order and considering all of them, and then drawing your own conclusions, no matter how they sound, because the opinion of an American is the opinion of an American, and we need to live with our own mind.
So what is Farley talking about and what are his conclusions?
Pays tribute to our efforts. Yes, he speaks with irony about the "deployment" of the aircraft carrier "Admiral Kuznetsov" off the coast of Syria and its "successful" work there, but he is quite serious in assessing the launches of "Caliber" from the Caspian Sea. And Russian submarines, although their activity cannot be compared with Soviet times, the fact is that the presence of our submarines is growing.
Farley believes that the Russian navy and the term "mess" are synonymous. And in the future, the state of affairs will only get worse.
Yes, the reasoning is strong and well thought out.
Indeed, the Russian fleet inherited at one time a huge number of fairly modern surface ships and submarines. But also a headache in terms of content. And Russia did not cope with this task in the same way as Ukraine, everything is exactly the same, the difference in scale.
Quietly, the Soviet legacy was cut into metal, sold to India, China, and to everyone who could pay, it (the legacy) quietly rusted along the bays "in storage" and so on.
And that's all, a decent Soviet fleet is over.
And what is left does not pose a particular threat to anyone. Well, perhaps the Ukrainian fleet will be afraid. In Somalia, there is someone to scare, but nothing more.
Large ships of the Russian fleet, you see, are not young. Moreover, judging by "Admiral Kuznetsov", there are many questions to the state. True, in response to Mr. Farley, one can reasonably argue that some kind of filth is being bombarded systematically and regularly on the newest Zamvolts, and that with aircraft carriers, not everything is as the Americans would like.
However, there is nothing to argue about age. Of the twenty-four main surface warships of the Russian Navy, only three frigates of the Admiral Grigorovich class were laid down after the collapse of the USSR. And the rest, yes, they really live out, even if from time to time these ships are modernized and repaired.
And here it is difficult to disagree without a proper dose of jingoistic patriotism. Indeed, how long "Kuznetsov" will now last without overhaul is a question. Yes, a question and not only to him, we have a dock repair issue in the North - this is such a question … below the belt with a running start.
I don't even want to talk about the Eagles, because Peter the Great hasn't been going anywhere for a suspiciously long time, and I'm afraid Nakhimov will remain at the stage of talks about returning to service.
And yet, yes, both cruisers are middle-aged again.
In general, the American is well done, he managed to grasp the essence of our entire system. I have already said more than once on the theme that all these promises from our Ministry of Defense are just empty shaking of air. But with very serious faces.
And Farley calmly says that if Russia really built every ship that has been loudly announced over the past decade, the Russian fleet would really go to the world level. But the announcement of large projects in order to gain at least some political points is not the implementation of these projects.
And the statistics on ships looks more than sad for us. Real statistics, and not the one that is loudly shouted about when by "20 … -th year will be built …"
There, overseas, everyone already understands perfectly well that nothing will be built.
The factual data on Russian-built surface ships at the international level looks very deplorable.
The biggest successes of Russian shipbuilding are the frigates Admiral Grigorovich (displacement 4,000 tons) and Admiral Gorshkov (5,400 tons).
The first one took about seven years to build, the second about ten years. Two frigates of the "Admiral Grigorovich" class have already entered service, four more are under construction. The first "Gorshkov" is due to enter service at the end of this year, with three more under construction.
After scratching my head, I want to say only one thing: it could be worse. It could have been much worse, because we were so enthusiastic about losing everything that our ancestors had acquired through the backbreaking work that even this might not have happened.
Of course, in comparison with the real maritime powers, everything looks so-so, even in terms of timing. The British spent six years on their Type 45 destroyer, the Americans spent four years on the Arlie Burke, the Japanese four years on the Atago (which is a destroyer), and the Chinese four years on the 052D destroyer.
Yes, and these are destroyers, ships are an order of magnitude larger than our frigates, which are still under construction.
And "Leaders" of all stripes, "Surf", "Manatees" and other "Poseidons" are, I'm afraid, only paper. Which will endure and not that, but you can't put it on the water, more precisely, you can, but you yourself know under what conditions paper meets water.
The reports on the ARMYs are just rainbow words in the assortment, but the cases … Cases that need to be considered at the shipyards - they look dreary.
And we already look ridiculous, because no one in the world takes seriously all these heady tales about the construction of something there. The whole world understands perfectly well that no such monsters from our shipyards will flop into the water.
Say - pumping? Not at all. Just agree with Farley. Smart man, why not agree?
But there is also one nuance here.
You know, not for the first year observing what is happening with our fleet, I understand that we are clearly following the path laid by Ukraine. That is, all the "old people" will safely rot, they will be written off, there will be something mosquito and a couple of "Grenov", as the largest ships that Russia could master.
But sorry, we forgot about the submarines. More precisely, they seem to have remained behind the scenes.
But in vain. And the smart man Farley does not discount them. And rightly so, that does not fold.
Yes, I agree, with the dream of some kind of Russian ocean-going fleet, which will demonstrate something there on the distant frontiers - this is a myth. This will never happen again, because we simply cannot build it. Nowhere, nothing, nothing. We really have nothing for this, no hands, no factories, no money.
And if money can still be found, then here are specialists and factories … Alas.
Do you really need it? To spend money and energy to “show the flag” is not a good idea, to be honest. It is clear that the penguins will be impressed, as the same Venezuelans were impressed by the contemplation of "Peter the Great", but …
But the Americans chuckle indulgently for a reason. 22 cruisers "Ticonderoga" - yes. There will be enough four, who will shoot the contents of their cells for the "Axes", and on this "Peter the Great" will simply end. Sadly, but true, our cruiser simply does not have enough ammunition to fend off such a flock of Tomahawks.
But the submarines …
No, really, if we cannot join the surface ocean fleet, then why should the world be dishonored? But there are people in the country who have preserved and increased the Soviet developments in the submarine fleet.
And our nuclear submarines, both with ballistic missiles and with cruise missiles - this is really something that we can put a trump card on the table with the words "And this is how?"
Of course, in comparison with the Soviet submarine fleet, it looks modest. Thirteen SSBNs, seven SSGNs, seventeen multipurpose submarines and about twenty diesel. In which, I hope, soon it will be possible to shove "Caliber".
Eight Boreyevs, three are already in operation, five more are under construction - this is significant. Seven "Ash" - also quite yourself.
The most important thing is that I have not the slightest doubt that these boats will be built. Can. Aircraft carriers cannot, cruisers cannot, destroyers cannot, we cannot do many things. But atomic horrors are ours.
You can quite imagine a 100,000-ton aircraft carrier, a 30,000-ton destroyer with a nuclear power plant (nonsense, of course, but who would forbid to carry nonsense today), we have always been strong in fairy tales.
But our nuclear submarine fleet and only he will be the guarantor of the fact that "if something happens - nothing after us."
Farley is a smart person and says the right thing.
Yes, once we, the Soviet Union, took the second place in the world in terms of the fleet. It was so. But then everything fell apart, like after the 1917 revolution, and the dive began.
And as a result, Russia could neither preserve the fleet inherited from the USSR, much less afford the construction of new ships in the proper quantities. Plus, we got into a trap when money became less and less, and more and more were needed to maintain and modernize old ships.
Ten years of crisis - and that's it, the fleet actually fell into a coma. Yes, except for the submarine forces. Fortunately.
And today Russia looks weak on the surface of the World Ocean. Very weak. It's hard to believe that we will ever have a second aircraft carrier. And China will not calm down, soon it will have three aircraft carriers, but three. And India and Britain will have at least two each.
Another question is whether we generally need this class of ships, which is more than dubious for our fleet - this is the question.
For conventional surface ships, the situation is even more deplorable. While we are proudly building missile boats and corvettes, the USA, France, Great Britain, Japan and China are rapidly building (especially the last couple) ships that are clearly superior to our "oldies".
Especially, by the way, China is upsetting. The pace at which large surface ships are being built is simply amazing. Farley's figures show that China has built about 40 large ships since 2000. For us, the figure is unattainable in principle.
And here we come to the most interesting. To the tips.
Well, we live in such a time, everyone thinks that they can distribute them. While Farley teaches at the University of Kentucky. He specializes in military doctrine, national security and naval issues. So - everything is on the topic.
So, Farley believes that without the restoration of its shipbuilding in volumes corresponding to the Soviet, Russia will not be able to compete with China or Japan. And Russia will not be able to restore shipbuilding until it redraws the entire economy.
Disingenuous? Perhaps. A kind of message for the future, within the framework of the race. It's just not entirely clear why, for weapons or something else?
Do we really need to compete in numbers with China or Japan? France or Great Britain? Well, we don't compare the United States at all, they have a printing press, which we lack.
And then the strategy comes into play.
Unfortunately, the Russian navy is divided between four different fleets (Black Sea, Baltic, Northern and Pacific). The fleets are isolated from each other so that none of them can quickly help others. Pay for one eighth of the world's territory, alas.
Of course, it is easier for China, it can really collect all three of its fleets in one fist in the shortest lines and so it is not bad to hit them. Agree.
Is it necessary at all?
The Baltic and the Black Sea are two puddles of a regional scale, nothing serious has ever happened and will never happen there. There we do not need fleets so much, more precisely, just everything that we can build for now is enough. Corvettes, frigates, diesel submarines, boats …
And, by the way, it is on these seas that our achievements in equipping various ships with the latest missile systems will come in handy. Although many say that the INF Treaty, which recently passed away, completely kills ships as carriers of missile weapons, but this is very controversial. I am sure that small ships with "Calibers" will be able to remain relevant.
And in large ocean spaces, all problems can be solved with the help of submarines. Today it is difficult to predict how and with whom we can enter into a conflict in the sea, but something suggests that it will hardly be the Black Sea or the Baltic Sea. But in the Pacific Ocean - quite so.
Another question is, which is better and more effective: a deterrent fleet of all sorts of frigate corvettes or a fleet of total extermination from nuclear submarines, which without surfacing can eliminate both the hypothetical enemy fleet and the enemy himself along with the islands on which he, the enemy, is located?
I agree with Mr. Farley that today we are not in a position to create the No. 2 fleet in the world, equal in quantity and quality to the Soviet Navy. But honestly, I don't see any point in creating it.
Mr. Farley is wishful thinking. Of course, it would be nice if we suddenly announced a campaign in order to restore the fleet, this is “everything for the fleet, everything for …”, they would begin to rebuild the economy, restore something, they would overstrain, as has happened more than once in history …
Whether it is necessary?
What do these unfortunate surface ships, scattered across four water areas (this is without flotillas) give, without the slightest chance to shine these ships in one fist or to coordinate work normally in which case?
Nothing.
Chasing these numbers … It’s stupid, I guess. Well, we have 42 DMZ surface ships spread over four fleets. Yes, and they are, by and large, on paper, this number includes "Kuznetsov", which is either there or not, and "Nakhimov", which probably does not exist.
That's not the point.
Let's admit it all the same: we have forever lagged behind the United States (126 DMZ ships) and China (123 DMZ ships) in the construction of large surface ships and will never catch up with them.
And is there any point in pushing?
As it were, in general, except for the notorious "demonstration of the flag to the Papuans", the fleet really does not have normal tasks. Simply because he, the fleet, is not able to fulfill them. There is nothing.
Although, I'm sure the submarine missile carriers will fulfill "the whole world to dust." And this is already pleasing.
But we, besides aircraft carriers, have problems in the fleet above the waterline.
All four fleets have one and only modern rescue vessel "Igor Belousov". Everything else is rusty Soviet rubbish, incapable of anything, as the epic with "Kursk" showed.
There is not a single normal sea minesweeper left, which calls into question any trips to hot regions at all.
Our anti-submarine aircraft are pterodactyls, not extinct solely from Soviet stubbornness. Although they are in the process of extinction.
And there are dozens of such examples. It's bad in our fleet. Very bad. And here I agree with Farley that yes, we will not return the Soviet fleet, even if the entire government is dispersed and everything "honestly acquired" is confiscated from them.
And thus, the only thing left for us is to churn out submarines further, which can pose a threat of the highest level to any potential enemy. Well, a coastal trifle for protection and defense.
Not the most beautiful situation, but alas, this is our real level. All these paper projects of super-destroyers and mega-aircraft carriers are exclusively for crabs for laughter, populism of the purest water.
Is it worth then, in general, to amuse the world with these frankly stupid statements, knowing in advance that we will not build anything? Especially without Nikolaev shipyards and Zaporozhye engines?
Indeed, than laughing at us, let the potential gentlemen remember that they cannot know at what point of the globe a packet of greetings for several hundred megatons can fly out from under the water column and simply demolish some part of the earth's surface.
Also an option, since destroyers, cruisers and aircraft carriers are too tough for us. The enemy's teeth can be knocked out with the help of submarines.
In general, I think we will emerge this time as well. Not the first time. The main thing is not to chase after beautiful numbers in statistics.
