In addition to the bitter truth, we also need positive examples, and we have them.
No matter how many problems with Russian naval development become known, it is always worth remembering the main thing: the Navy is vital for Russia to be able to conduct at least some kind of policy in the world. If there is no fleet, there is no politics, there is no way to achieve the interests of the state anywhere.
The very recent past, so recent that it flows into the present, gives us an example of how the Russian Navy, with all its problems, in fact defended Russian foreign policy interests, playing simply a strategic role not only in Russian foreign policy, but also, seems to be in recent history as a whole.
We are talking about the role of the Navy in the epoch-making event of recent years - the war in Syria.
It does not matter who and what thinks about it, but if it were not for the Navy, then Syria would not be as such now. There would not be our base in Tartus, the base in Khmeimim, Bashar al-Assad, the Christian community that preserved the Aramaic language, which was spoken in those parts even in the time of Jesus, women who allow themselves to walk down the street with open faces, thousand-year-old cultural monuments - nothing was gone.
The beginning of the confrontation
Nowadays, few people remember how it all began. It is worth refreshing your memory.
International Business Times, 12 July 2012.
On Thursday, the Russian news service Interfax, citing anonymous sources in the country's Ministry of Defense, reported that Russian warships were leaving ports in Europe and the Arctic to arrive in the eastern Mediterranean, and that some of them were destined for the port of Tartus in Syria. … Eleven ships, including five large amphibious transports, four of which are capable of carrying 200 soldiers and ten tanks each, and the fifth - twice as many, will make the transition from the Arctic, Baltic and Black Seas to conduct exercises in the Atlantic and Mediterranean Sea. Russian news outlets say one of the destroyers, Smetlivy from the Black Sea Fleet, will reach Tartus within three days. Two large transports, "Nikolai Filchenkov" and "Caesar Kunnikov" (the latter participated in the 2008 war with Georgia), are also expected from the Black Sea, although it is not known whether they will enter Syria …
RIA Novosti reports that Admiral Chabanenko, a modern destroyer, and three landing craft, Alexander Otrakovsky, George the Victorious and Kondopoga, will leave the fleet base in Arctic Murmansk. Interfax states that they will all make a call to Tartus, although it is still unknown if they are carrying a set of Marines, and if so, whether they will remain in Syria …
Analysts have already questioned the reports of Interfax and other agencies, which announced in June about the sending of ships to Tartus, treating them as a "hype" and inaccurate information …
The US State Department issued a statement on Tuesday that the US hopes that Russian ships' visit to Syria will be limited to refueling …
The Americans were just a little late. Then, in 2012, the battles were already taking place in Damascus itself. The city was only partially controlled by the government, and Asma al-Assad explained to her children that the children of Bashar al-Assad could not miss school due to some kind of mortar attacks.
And at that last moment, when it seemed that the strength was gone, help came. Landing ships as transports. Some weapons, some ammunition, some spare parts, and these benevolent people from the north, whose fathers once helped fight Israel … this was enough so that then, in 2012, everything would not end in the same disaster as in Libya.
The West was late, but it was not going to give up. BDK flights from Novorossiysk to Tartus did not keep the secret about their cargo for a long time, everything became clear very soon. And then the United States made a decision to crush Syria "openly", since there was no need to organize a pretext (chemical attack).
And by the time this provocation took place, a NATO strike group was already being formed at sea. By August 2013, the West had mustered forces for a fairly substantial missile strike, which was supposed to help the militants finally break the remnants of the resistance of the government forces. Five American destroyers, a landing ship, a nuclear submarine of the US Navy, another nuclear submarine of the British Navy and a French frigate - a set of countries that did not want to indirectly, but openly shed blood in Syria was formed even then and has not changed much since then. This group also had enough cruise missiles.
By September, the AUG of six ships pulled up to the Red Sea, including the aircraft carrier "Nimitz", together with the UDC "Kirsarge" - the "hero" of the wars in Yugoslavia and Libya, where this ship acted as a light aircraft carrier.
But on their way were three Russian warships, the Admiral Panteleev BOD, the Moskva missile cruiser and one more combat ship, and the Azov scout, theoretically capable of warning everyone in advance about the command to launch American missiles, and the BDK, loaded weapon for the fighting Syrian army. These forces would not have been enough to stop the Western armada, but, firstly, the United States understood that everything would not be limited to the Mediterranean Sea, and secondly, the presence of nuclear weapons on board Russian ships was questionable. That is, generally speaking, it shouldn't have been there. Neither we nor the Americans have deployed it at sea for many years (with the exception of submarine ballistic missiles). But no one dared to guarantee this completely in those days …
And then Putin threw a bone to Obama in the form of joint elimination of Syrian chemical weapons, and he, seeing no reasonable way out, grabbed it and played back. So it was won for two years - until September 2015. And Syria was saved. Rescued by the Russian Navy. And he also saved the opportunity for Russia to return politically to the Arab world and the Middle East.
Analysis of the events of 2012-2013
Operations by the Russian fleet in the Mediterranean, aimed at disrupting the strike against Syria and ensuring the supply of weapons and supplies to the Syrian army, were a typical example of "peacetime operations" (see. the article "The Navy: Choosing a Balance Between Preparation for Combat Operations and Peacetime Tasks"). The forces that the Navy used, without the use of nuclear weapons, would not have been able to withstand the United States and NATO. And in the event of an attack by submarines or basic aircraft and with nuclear weapons, they would not have been able to.
But then the Navy relied on the protection that the Russian flag gave the ships, and on the fact that the risks of an attack on them in NATO could not but be assessed as very high. In any case, at least one American destroyer could have gone to the bottom in this case, which at that time was politically unacceptable. Yes, the submarine could lose in a battle with the BOD.
Most importantly, Russia could strike at any other place, even in Alaska. And the West stopped.
Since the fall of 2013, the grouping of naval ships has acted as a permanent task force of the Russian Navy in the Mediterranean Sea.
It should also be noted the role of the fleet in supplying the Syrian army - it was also of critical importance for the latter. The fleet has been criticized for using amphibious assault ships to deliver material and technical means to Syria - their carrying capacity is low, and flights in the Syrian Express have significantly reduced their resource.
But we must understand that there was no choice. Initially, the Department of Transport Support of the Ministry of Defense was supposed to deal with the deliveries, but it, as they say, "could not." In addition, it was obvious that commercial ships flying the civilian flag would sooner or later face the blockade of Syria by NATO naval forces. The inspection of the Chariot with ammunition and the British “U-turn” of the Alaid with helicopters set the trend. In such circumstances, there is simply no other force left, except the Navy, capable of taking over the delivery of weapons and ammunition to Syria, with the guarantee that no foreign military will board the ships. And the fleet only had a large landing craft and various auxiliary vessels - killers and the like. In the end, what they could, so they got lucky.
Was the fleet's actions successful? Yes, more than. It was, as the Americans say, "a blow to a larger weight category", the Navy actually fulfilled the task with absolutely insufficient forces. Would our ships survive if it came to a clash? No, but in those conditions it was not required. It is also worth noting that the tasks of countering the policy of the United States and its allies were carried out either simply by ships of the oceanic zone (RRC, BOD), or by ships of the far sea zone, which in practice proved their ability to move in the open ocean (BDK, TFR). Syria and our policy were not saved by RTOs, and not by missile boats, but by completely different ships.
The role of the fleet, however, did not even come close to ending there.
Syrian Express and missile strikes
Until now, BDK flights continue to play a vital role in the supply of both our group in Syria and the Syrian army. Although the ATO has long since "woken up", although full-fledged transport ships, including the mighty "Sparta", have appeared on the "express" line, and the "OBL-Logistic", created by the Ministry of Defense, took over the transportation, it is still impossible to do without the BDK so far.
And in previous years it was simply unrealistic. It would not be an exaggeration to say that the BDK turned out to be one of the most useful ships in the fleet. This, of course, does not mean that it is necessary to do so in the future, but it shows the vital role of high-speed military transports, controlled not by some structures, but by the navy directly, which, having weapons for self-defense and guaranteed by the naval flagged immunity in international waters could be thrown into missions immediately, by order. In fact, the existence in the Navy of the "equivalent" of such ships saved an entire country, and we just saw how.
On October 7, 2015, the Russian Navy began striking terrorist targets with Kalibr cruise missiles. Initially, the strikes were delivered by small missile ships of the Caspian Flotilla, but later they were joined by ships of the Black Sea Fleet (for example, Project 11356 frigates) and diesel-electric submarines. Although these strikes had no fundamental military significance, they had enormous political significance. With these strikes, Russia showed that it has a "long arm" that is quite capable of reaching the territories that our opponents considered safe, including the US military infrastructure in the Persian Gulf and the British one in Cyprus. The use of small missile ships of Project 21361 "Buyan-M" as carriers of cruise missiles looked somewhat controversial. On the one hand, their tactical and technical characteristics made it possible, in the event of a "big" war, to "hide" them in the depths of Russian territory, on inland waterways, and also to maneuver them between the Caspian and Black Seas, which, of course, gives considerable military advantages. On the other hand, in the far sea zone, the ships showed themselves not at all so well (and they had to act there), they are defenseless against air strikes, submarines, and require protection from surface ships of other classes - but at the same time they do not have sufficient seaworthiness and speed. to maneuver with them without restrictions. As a result, they had to be taken out for military service in the Mediterranean Sea. Nevertheless, the “wake-up call” for the West turned out to be very loud and many “hotheads” were cooled by these blows.
And the use of submarines and frigates for such strikes, capable of operating without restrictions in the far sea zone, finally and irreversibly “consolidated” the effect achieved by the first strikes from MRKs. It became clear that technically Russia could reach very far with its cruise missiles - even in the non-nuclear version.
It was worth, of course, to modernize the old patrol boats of projects 1135 and 1135M - "Ladny" and "Pytlivy". The volumes on these ships are occupied by the "Rastrub" submarine missile system, the cockpits and the hydroacoustics station located under it, can be used to accommodate the 3S-14 launcher, which will allow these ships to be armed not only with the PLUR, but also with other missiles of the "Caliber" family. This would increase the number of surface ships DMZ - carriers of "Caliber" in the Black Sea Fleet to five. Naturally, this would have to be done together with the repair and extension of the service life of these ships. So far, however, this issue has not been raised.
One way or another, the Navy has made its contribution here as well.
American strikes and their correlation with the size of the naval forces
Impudent US cruise missile attacks on Syrian military and civilian targets did not leave anyone indifferent, although, generally speaking, one would expect that the Americans would not so easily release their already almost killed victim from their claws, and the daring newcomer, Russia, would not be allowed to do everything freely. whatever you like. This did not happen, but the American strikes have an important aspect.
On April 7, 2017, at the time the US Navy launched a missile strike at Shayrat airbase, there were no naval warships off the Syrian coast. Only after the attack, the command urgently sent the frigate "Admiral Grigorovich" to the Mediterranean Sea, followed by a couple of RTOs.
At the time of the next American strike, delivered jointly with Britain and France, on April 14, 2018, there were only two frigates and two diesel submarines in the region, which was generally incomparable with the forces of the West.
The most interesting thing started after.
The Americans, in the course of the provocation inspired by their allies “on the ground”, became convinced that among their own population the level of trust in media reports is still high, and even such ridiculous accusations as took place as a result of the actions of the so-called “White Helmets” in the Duma (Eastern Guta), the population of the United States and Western countries is quite "eaten up".
Immediately after the April strike, preparations began for a new provocation. From press reports of the time:
"Look", May 3, 2018
With the participation of American special services in the area of the Al-Jafra oil field near the US military base in the province of Deir ez-Zor, a new provocation is being prepared with the alleged use of chemical weapons, an informed source associated with the Syrian special services said. "The US intelligence services in Syria are planning provocations using prohibited substances," a source told RIA Novosti. According to him, the operation is being led by a former militant of the Islamic State terrorist group [banned in Russia] Mishan Idriz Al Hamash.
There was a lot of such news later, the Ministry of Defense monitored the delivery of chemical warfare agents to Syria, and the preparation of both terrorists and their masters, the Americans, for a new provocation, which, in their opinion, should have been as successful as the previous one. To put these Russians in their place, to thwart their plans, to prevent them from entering into alliances - who needs such an ally, for an alliance with whom the Tomahawks fall on their heads? But this time it didn't work out.
Since August 2018, when there were already rumors in Washington about a new impending strike on Syria, Russia began deploying a naval group in the Mediterranean Sea of such a force that had not been there for a very long time.
The following were sent to the Mediterranean Sea: RRC "Marshal Ustinov", BOD "Severomorsk", frigates "Admiral Grigorovich", "Admiral Essen", "Admiral Makarov", SKR "Pytlivy", three MRK with missiles "Caliber", capable of reach almost any target in the Mediterranean, two diesel submarines.
Aerospace forces from the Khmeimim airbase began to carry out demonstration flights over French ships with suspended anti-ship missiles, and the Su-30SM naval aviation flew to the Khmeimim base itself.
From the end of August, the group began exercises, and the aviation performed a demonstrative sinking of the skeleton of the old Syrian TFR by missile strike.
And everything died out. There was no provocation with chemical weapons, there was no strike on Syria. Never happened again.
You can agree with the role of the fleet, or you can dispute it, but the fact is obvious: there is no naval grouping in the eastern Mediterranean - there are American missile strikes. There is such a grouping - there are no blows, and there are not even hints of them, and with the apparent desire of the enemy to inflict them.
It must be admitted that the combat composition of the group was far from balanced, so an obvious "weak point" was its anti-submarine defense, the ability of low-sea MRK of the Buyan-M class to maneuver together with the rest of the squadron at high speed (if it was needed) was "questionable", but as a show of force, the operation was quite successful, and the fading of the topic with a new attack on Syria is clear evidence of this.
conclusions
In the course of the civil war in the Syrian Arab Republic and the international terrorist intervention in this country, inspired by the United States and its allies, the Russian Navy played a decisive role in preventing the defeat of the Syrian government. The Navy did not allow a missile strike on the Syrian army at critical moments in 2013, provided all the necessary time for military transport, delivered demonstrative, politically very important missile strikes from a long distance, and in the end stopped another missile strike on Syria by the United States …
At the same time, it is an obvious fact that in the presence of a significant number of Russian warships in the region, especially missile cruisers, the United States and its allies behave very restrainedly and do not carry out any provocations.
Thus, the Russian Navy turned out to be a vital tool both for saving the Syrian Arab Republic and for supplying its armed forces, without which this country would have perished at the moment.
The events around Syria in 2012-2018 show very clearly what role the Navy plays in the country's foreign policy.
They also show that no coastal force, no mosquito fleet is simply capable of playing the same role: the Americans clearly set their tail between their legs only when the region simultaneously has a BOD, which their submariners are still afraid of, and a missile cruiser. The presence of some frigates, even though they are capable of striking the coast with Kalibr cruise missiles, does not stop them. NATO also reacts painfully to aircraft armed with anti-ship missiles.
Yes, the composition of the Navy's groupings was not ideal - both because of the MRK, and because of the minesweepers that urgently need modernization, because of insufficient anti-submarine defense, and the number could sometimes be larger, but even in this form, the Navy has its own tasks in the Syrian the war fulfilled more than completely. And naval aviation would not hurt the airborne Onyx, and more modern anti-submarine aircraft. But after the sinking of the target ship, the enemy became silent without it.
And this is quite a proof of the need for Russia as an oceanic fleet (cruisers and BODs came from other oceans) and naval aviation, including strike (assault) aviation. I would like, of course, that in the event of a "breakdown" of the situation from a demonstration of force to a real clash, we always and in all cases would have something to "put on the table." In principle, this is solvable.
In the future, if Russia has its own independent policy in the world, then there must be a fleet corresponding to this policy.
And whatever happens to him now, we should all believe that she will have him, and actively strive for this, not succumbing to either the "dizziness of success" or calls to go "ashore", limiting ourselves to missile boats and coastal missile systems.
And then everything will work out for us.
