And in general, it is high time to decide whether we (Russia) are a sea or a continental power?
If by reason, yes, according to past times, it seems to be sea and even ocean. To date, everything is ambiguous.
Although, in principle, it has always been ambiguous. Russia is generally a unique country in terms of fleet ownership, since, probably, no other country in the world has such problems with its fleet anymore. More precisely, with the fleets.
There are countries that have to maintain more than one fleet. For example, the United States, there seem to be more of them, but they are all divided into two sectors: the Pacific and the Atlantic. But so that four, in my opinion, no one else in the world has such a nightmare.
Nevertheless, it is necessary to get out somehow. And not for the sake of outright stupidity such as "showing the flag" or "presence." The flag does not frighten anyone, and the presence of some of our surface ships causes animation in foreign media exclusively in the section "Humor and Satire".
There is more important thing than all these parades and demonstrations of everything and everyone. This is the protection of objects on our borders and, in fact, the borders themselves.
For example, the Northern Sea Route. Or the Kamchatka Peninsula. Or the water area from Kamchatka to Sakhalin. That is, such places in our territory, where it is not always possible to get by air. About the path on the ground (where it is), I generally keep quiet.
No, of course, you can bury the entire coast with shooters and babakhalkas, but everything connected with the personnel and its life support will still fall on the ships. And then, we go to the map, look at our northern and eastern coastal lines and understand that well, his …
So no matter how it may seem that the navy is a luxury, alas, there is no way without the navy
Yes, it's expensive. Yes, for a long time. Yes, we cannot do everything now. So what?
And nothing. You still have to look out to sea. From there, a threat emanated, is and will continue to emanate. Until anti-gravity is invented and battleships start flying. So far, the cheapest and most efficient transport over long distances is by sea.
Unfortunately, our fleet is far from what it used to be. We are finishing up the ships that we inherited from the USSR, we ourselves are not yet able to build something like that. We are not even talking about monsters such as "Eagles", it is still problematic to repair 1164, let alone build something else. Alas, this is so. Building large surface ships in the ocean zone is not for modern Russia.
And you can endlessly grind projects-projects such as a super-aircraft carrier, a destroyer, and so on at exhibitions. That is why exhibitions and forums exist to show off concepts there. Nobody takes projects from exhibitions seriously. Serve everyone in metal and fully armed and in the sea.
As a result, the Russian navy, even theoretically and in a patriotic frenzy, cannot be compared with the American one. It looks about as depressing as comparing our Pacific Fleet and the Chinese PLA Navy. Moreover, we are really unable to catch up (at least) the Chinese in the Pacific Ocean. And there, besides the Chinese, there is also the Japanese fleet, which is also progressing from year to year.
And an option that can, if not equalize the chances, then at least neutralize the superiority of our potential (and there are all potential), is needed like air.
And then, willy-nilly, but you remember that not all is lost in some branches of shipbuilding. Advanced Moremans already understand where I'm going. Yes, dear ones, exactly there. I look under the water.
We have not yet forgotten how to build submarines. It is a fact.
We build the best nuclear submarines in the world. This is also a fact.
Submarines have such qualities as stealth, autonomy and increased combat stability. The latter - I meant that, unlike surface ships, submarines move in three-dimensional space, which gives them an undeniable advantage over any other class of ships.
I will not even talk for a long time about the advantages, a rather short excursion into history, when in the First (and in the Second too) World War the island empire of Great Britain was actually put on the brink of starvation by German submarines, which sank all merchant ships indiscriminately.
It is very effective today, especially if you remember how much everyone receives by sea, from the United States to the same Great Britain. I am generally silent about Japan, for them the naval blockade will be the same even today.
By the way, it should be said right away that the sea is not the delivery of everything, but purely fish to catch. And even then, even with such a fleet, who would dare to prohibit? The shore is nearby, but on the shore … Here. There is a difference, right?
Yes, submarines are very effective in the fight against surface ships, and I believe that they even surpass aviation in this. They cannot fight aviation, but with the modern working depth of a normal submarine, the plane is not so terrible. And so atomic and in general.
And then, the submarine still needs to be found. It's easier with an airplane.
Now some will remember the Strugatskys and their "Inhabited Island". The Dread Island Empire and its flocks of white submarines.
Why not?
Nuclear submarines, due to their significant size, high speed, immersion depth and autonomy, but also more noise, makes no sense to use in closed seas such as the Black and Baltic. But there is no one to fight with their help, everything is decided by coastal missile systems and a mosquito fleet of small ships with the same "Caliber".
And, I am sure, they will decide how it should be.
But the real oceanic fleets, the Northern and Pacific ones … There is something to think about here. Even now, there are nuclear submarines only in the composition of these fleets, then only the increase in quantity and quality.
After all, nuclear submarines are perhaps the only large ships that we have not forgotten how to build.
If we are not able to build missile cruisers and destroyers, then maybe the way out is in missile submarine cruisers? Yes, strategic missile submarine cruisers (RPK SN) in operational terms do not belong so much to the Navy as to means of nuclear deterrence (SNF), nevertheless they are combat ships. And the salvo of such a ship is in no way weaker than that of a surface colleague. We don't even talk about secrecy.
The main RPK SN in the domestic fleet are Project 667BDRM boats, each carrying 16 R-29RM submarine ballistic missiles (SLBMs) of various modifications.
K-51 "Verkhoturye"
K-84 "Yekaterinburg"
K-18 "Karelia"
K-407 "Novomoskovsk"
K-114 "Tula"
They are in the ranks as part of the Northern Fleet. One boat (K-117 "Bryansk") is under repair.
The predecessors of these boats were the ships of the 667BDR project. Each boat carries the same number of R-29R missiles - 16 units.
But of the 14 boats of the project, only three are afloat today, the Pacific K-223 "Podolsk", K-433 "St. George the Victorious "and K-44" Ryazan ". And yes, the first two will most likely be disposed of, which we have been writing about with great regret.
Of the seven Project 941 cruisers, only the TK-208 Dmitry Donskoy remained in service in the Northern Fleet, which is used to test the R-30 Bulava SLBMs.
But it is for the Bulava that ships are built, which are considered the pinnacle of perfection for submarine cruisers. This is Project 955, each submarine of which will carry 16 R-30 missiles.
K-535 Yuri Dolgoruky, the first cruiser of Project 955, is part of the Northern Fleet. K-550 "Alexander Nevsky" and K-551 "Vladimir Monomakh" are assigned to serve in the Pacific Ocean.
Further development of the project - more advanced ships with the index 955A are currently at varying degrees of readiness and construction. "Prince Vladimir", "Prince Oleg", "Generalissimo Suvorov", "Emperor Alexander III" and "Prince Pozharsky".
In general, in terms of the number of PKK SN, if Russia lags behind the United States, then this lag is not so critical. But we bypass China, Great Britain and France. True, individually, and not all at once. But in general it is doubtful that all of the above powers will suddenly decide to fight with us. Nevertheless, there is a fragile parity, even if the British and French have almost all the means of sea-based nuclear deterrence, which cannot be said about us.
But the Navy is not alive with strategic cruisers, right? As I noted above, the RPK CH is a combat ship, but really limited in use. "The whole world in dust" - that's just their part.
But there are just nuclear submarines, the capabilities of which are more modest, but after all, it is not every day that countries and continents have to be destroyed, is it?
Veterans of Project 671RTMK are serving (or rather, living out) in the Northern Fleet.
In the good old Soviet times, these boats were built 26 units. Today there are only three veterans left: B-138 Obninsk in service, B-414 Daniil Moskovsky and B-448 Tambov under repair. The B-414 will most likely go out of repair for decommissioning and disposal, sadly, but on the other hand, they don't live so much at all. Most likely, the B-138 with the B-448 will face the same fate, the boats are outdated in all respects.
Next, we have a nuclear submarine of project 971.
Good boats, at one time they caught up with American Los Angeles-class nuclear submarines in terms of noise level and, in general, the boats were quite breakthrough in many aspects.
Of the 14 nuclear submarines of project 971 that were part of our Navy (the fifteenth submarine was immediately given to India), today there are 11 left.
Northern Fleet:
K-317 "Panther"
K-335 "Cheetah" - in service
K-154 "Tiger"
K-157 "Vepr"
K-328 "Leopard"
K-461 "Wolf" - under repair
Pacific Fleet:
K-419 "Kuzbass" - in service
K-295 "Samara"
K-322 "Kashalot" (there is information that after the repair will go to India)
K-331 "Magadan" (there is information that is likely to be written off)
K-391 "Bratsk" - under repair
If you look like this, the picture seems to be sad, but there is a nuance. The main armament of this type of nuclear submarine, the Granat missile system, to put it mildly (very mildly), is outdated. Now it is possible to re-equip boats for newer complexes "Onyx" and "Caliber", which will definitely have a positive effect on the capabilities of the boats.
Nuclear submarine of project 945.
These boats are there and they are not at the same time. The boats' titanium hulls made them smaller in terms of size, but significantly increased the cost. A total of 4 boats were manufactured, two according to project 945, B-239 Karp and B-276 Kostroma, both of which are under repair, from which they will most likely be recycled, and two boats of project 945A, B-336 Pskov and B-534 "Nizhny Novgorod", which are still in the ranks of the Northern Fleet.
Nuclear submarine of project 949A.
"Antei" is a separate topic altogether. The last members of the family of "aircraft carrier killers" suddenly find a second wind.
We are talking again about the modernization replacement of the P-700 "Granit" anti-ship missiles with the P-800 "Onyx" or the same "Caliber". A global alteration of launch containers will not be required, respectively, 24 missiles are nice. Not everyone, but nonetheless.
To date, out of 11 "Anteyevs" there are 8 left. But the former rather highly specialized "aircraft carrier killers" will become more versatile and versatile ships.
Northern Fleet:
K-119 "Voronezh"
K-410 "Smolensk"
K-266 "Eagle" - in service
Pacific Fleet:
K-150 "Tomsk"
K-456 "Tver" - in service
K-132 "Irkutsk"
K-186 "Omsk"
K-442 "Chelyabinsk" - under repair
One nuclear submarine (K-329 "Belgorod") is being rebuilt into a special-purpose submarine.
Well, the cherry on top, project 885 nuclear submarine.
So far alone, K-560 Severodvinsk. Low-noise, newest, capable of shooting 32 "Caliber" boats in one salvo. But they are already under construction, moreover, already within the framework of the improved project 08851, 6 more nuclear submarines: K-561 "Kazan" (already launched), K-573 "Novosibirsk", K-571 "Krasnoyarsk", K-564 "Arkhangelsk", Perm, Ulyanovsk.
What is the bottom line, in which we do not even take into account diesel-electric submarines? Diesel submarines should be discussed separately, because after all, this is a very close combat weapon, more suitable just for inland seas such as the Black and Baltic.
Can the number of nuclear submarines listed above be considered sufficient?
If you just operate with the numbers of the two fleets, then it seems to be nothing.
27 multipurpose nuclear submarines, of which 12 are in service, the remaining 15 are under repair, some are undergoing modernization, and some will not return to service. And the number of nuclear submarines planned for dismantling ranges from 4 to 6 according to various sources.
Of course, this amount can by no means be considered sufficient. Under no circumstances. Yes. In terms of quantity, we rank second in the world after the United States, surpassing all others, but do not forget that in the event of an open confrontation between NATO, US submarines will be joined by French and British nuclear submarines.
Even if the construction of Project 08851 "Ash" goes according to plan, without "shifts to the right", this will only compensate for the decommissioning of old Soviet-built boats.
It is clear that boats of projects 671RTMK, 945 and 971 will go down in history sooner or later, and they will need to be replaced. Will it be "Ash" or a boat of the next generation "Husky", while the question.
It is difficult to radically improve the situation with the renovation of the Russian fleet today. It is difficult, if only because the fleet is very expensive, and most importantly, a slow brainchild for any country. Even for the USA. What can we say about the more than modest Russian capabilities.
So is it worth wasting time, money and the brains of designers on the creation of empty projectors such as the aircraft carrier "Storm" or the destroyer "Leader", if today we are simply not able to organize the production of elementary propulsion systems for destroyers and frigates? If our ships run on Chinese diesels?
Why then all this, isn't it easier to concentrate both human and financial efforts (and there is no longer enough money again) on what we are still strong in?
And who said that a powerful nuclear submarine fleet cannot become a reliable shield for a country with such a huge coastline?
