Information is primarily what the media convey to the consumer. This is a postulate. Information in the media can be radically different from what actually exists, and this will not even be a lie. It is simply "such a method of presentation" or facts interpreted by an expert in this way.
Let's take the business newspaper Vzglyad and the material of the shipbuilding engineer Alexander Shishkin.
Russia begins the revival of a full-fledged ocean-going fleet.
The article is, to put it mildly, mega-optimistic. I will deliberately make a lot of quotes with subsequent analysis, since the topic is burning, but … But what the "shipbuilding engineer" writes, to put it mildly, does not correspond to reality.
"The shipbuilding program of the Navy is encouraging among experts."
What country, such are the experts. I don’t know for whom what is happening in our shipbuilding can cause optimism, except for that category of people who do not care what topic to shout "hurray" on. The fact that we can still build nuclear submarines and missile boats, of course, greatly distinguishes us from Ukraine, but …
"After a long hiatus, Russia is resuming the construction of warships capable of operating in the distant sea and ocean zones and projecting power into remote regions of the World Ocean."
An interesting statement. "Power projection" - this is how handsome men like "Atlant" and "Orlans" appear in Soviet times, surrounded by destroyers, and American AUG, just in case, begin to work out options for withdrawal.
Alas, in fact, everything is sad. We are not talking about such ships. It's not even about building ships.
It is - attention - about the PLANNED BOOKMARK of ships.
That is, we ("Vzglyad" is our newspaper, which means we) have sunk to the point that in joyful messages we start not from fait accompli such as the bookmarking of the ship, but from the PLAN according to the bookmark.
Forgive me magnanimously, but in our country even the laying of a ship is not a guarantee that it will be launched, and even more so will enter service. How much was cut on the stocks?
But if a peremoga is needed, then we will happily jump from what we have planned.
The most important thing is no responsibility. The plan can be moved to the right, down, pushed into the far corner and put on the back burner. And that's okay, that's the plan! The main thing is done, loud "Hurray!" rushes over the paper and electronic waves.
Move on.
"Of greatest interest are plans to create combat ships of the main classes - submarines, frigates, corvettes and universal amphibious assault ships (UDC)."
So all my life I believed that the main classes are yes, submarines, and with them aircraft carriers, cruisers, destroyers, okay, frigates.
Corvettes and landing ships - how's that? Is it because we can build them? And why, then, are not in the main classes of missile boats, diving bots and multi-oar yachts?
If we are talking about a distant sea or ocean zone, excuse me, what kind of corvettes? Frigates, which, according to our classification, are former patrol ships, back and forth, are quite suitable for the role of ocean escorts for large ships, but corvettes …
Okay, let's go in order, as in the article.
Nuclear submarines
It's stupid to argue with this, they are all, and "Borei" and "Ash", this is a long arm, capable of weighing a terrible splash. And the more SSBNs and AICRs in our fleet, the calmer you can feel. It is great that we have not forgotten how to make such ships, God forbid everyone at Sevmash to build them further.
However, I would like to note that the nuclear submarine is a hidden weapon. And "showing the flag" and other nonsense in this style is not for them. For this there are ancient large troughs such as "Admiral Kuznetsov" and "Peter the Great".
But yes, the more of these ships, the less need for any aircraft carriers and nuclear destroyers.
Basically, that's it. The clever thing in the article ended, the owl began to frankly pull on the globe.
Non-nuclear submarines
It's getting more interesting. Diesel-electric submarine in the so-called "deep ocean zone" - what's this? And, most importantly, why?
If you take all the same “Varshavyanka” (well, it’s better for now, we just do not have it), which is already lagging behind the more modern boats of potential partners, and compare its characteristics with the same “Borey”, then you understand that this is a boat, well, not for far zone. What is sea, what is ocean. And it's not even about autonomy. In the speed of movement. Although in autonomy too.
This means that the part of the article that speaks of diesel-electric submarines, we remove their understanding of the far ocean zone.
But, unfortunately, I simply could not translate the words about translation.
Maybe our naval readers will add in the comments …
Frigates
I begin this part of the discussion and immediately end with a quote from Shishkin.
“Unfortunately, the“two modernized frigates of project 22350”scheduled for laying at the Severnaya Verf are not oceanic 22350M with a total displacement of about 8000 tons, but only improved“Gorshkovs”(5400 tons)”.
That is, the author admits that these ships have nothing to do with the DMZ. These are ordinary patrolmen of the most near-field range.
But:
"Nonetheless, the doubling of the 22350 series (from four to eight) is a notable step forward in rebuilding the deep sea zone (DMZ) surface forces."
Well, yes. And the doubling of the number of river trams in St. Petersburg is a noticeable step towards the development of the Baltic Sea.
In general, it smelled of that very dear peremogo. That is, in fact - zrada, but so … transient.
That is, again I do not understand how ships, which under no circumstances will “operate in the far sea and oceanic zone and project force onto remote regions of the World Ocean”, are “a noticeable step forward on the path of restoring the surface forces of the DMZ”?
However, peremoga … as it is, in all its glory.
Corvettes
What do the corvettes have to do with the DMZ, I also don’t understand. Born as a class of boats and patrol ships, they are today, in accordance with the definition, ships exclusively of the near sea zone.
How the bookmark, to put it mildly, of the ridiculous corvettes of the 20386 project, which have almost no positive sides, relates to the appearance of the DMZ ships, is not clear.
But Mr. Shishkin splendidly poured water in the article, talking about various "ifs", "perhaps if" and other similar conventions, without saying a word, what does the DMZ have to do with it.
And the last thing.
UDC
This is twofold. The fact that we will still build two UDCs, albeit not of the same size as the Mistral's coffins, but less than half, is good.
Tango with helicopter carriers.
In principle, the UDC can be called a DMZ ship. Since the characteristics of the Russian UDCs are not open, and everything that is on them is mainly rumors and fortune-telling, I will push off from the Americans.
The Yankees have a UDC group. These are "Taravas" and "Wasps".
Eight pieces of the latter are able to drag over 10,000 miles (and even more with refueling and supplies) almost 15,000 people with everything necessary to restore order somewhere over the horizon.
And, you see, such a crowd can trample a rather large area … in search of democracy.
But let me say that the American Navy is able to ensure the most important thing: the unimpeded movement of these forces over the specified distance. For this, American sailors have everything: aircraft carriers, cruisers, destroyers, frigates, submarines.
Shishkin is indignant, they say, it's bad that our UDCs (if, I repeat, they are at all) are inferior to everyone else in the world in terms of tonnage.
Apparently, he is simply not aware that the effectiveness of the use of the ship does not depend on the tonnage at all. Historical examples of the mountain, but that is not the point.
The UDC is a rather slow and defenseless ship, capable, in principle, of waving off a couple of planes, nothing more. And he needs a cover, and a pretty serious one. And from aviation in sufficient quantities, and from missiles, and from submarine torpedoes.
We have none of this yet. And what Shishkin says in his article is suitable for anything, but just not to support the troops that we will land … well, let's say, on Okinawa.
In general, the article about the peremog turned out to be as fat and rich as Ukrainian borscht. And it is made according to the principle "if there is no change, it must be done!"
It turns out that nothing is left of the declared "grouping of ships in the far sea zone", but there is a persistent feeling that everything is going according to plan where it should be.
That's just where it is necessary - well, it is completely incomprehensible.
The trouble is, if we start to bake the pies … In general, I would like to hear something completely different from the shipbuilding engineer. For example, how are we going to solve the problem that we do not have the ability to build DMZ ships. How the problem of docking of large ships in the Northern Fleet will be solved.
But not a story about a change in the construction of an ocean-going fleet on the example of corvettes, diesel-electric submarines and other ships that are not quite suitable for this.
Well, we seem to be not in Ukraine yet … Why do we need this? We need ships. Perhaps the ships DMZ and DOZ, but not stories that we will someday have them.
