Does Russia need a navy? And if so, which one? Armadas of aircraft carriers and cruisers or mosquito fleets? Many copies have been broken about this topic and the battles continue.
Each of us would like to see the Russian Federation as a mighty naval power. But let's be realistic - this is hardly possible in the foreseeable future. And the reasons are quite simple. All over the world, when creating fleets, states are guided by three principles: the economic capabilities of the country, geographical location and (arises from the first two) ambitions of the leadership. All these principles can be applied to Russia as well.
1. Economic opportunities of the country
A poor country cannot afford a strong navy by definition. Rich - can take a risk if she really needs the fleet for any reason. In the "fat zero" Russian admirals indulged in outright Manilovism, talking aloud about "at least four" aircraft carrier groups, allegedly urgently needed by Russia. Of course, such thoughts were insane even in those years, because the implementation of such programs would literally leave the country "without pants." Back in the Soviet years, it was calculated that the creation of one full-fledged AUG comes out at cost as a city with a population of over one million with all the infrastructure. As a result, even the mighty USSR, which had incomparably great financial capabilities, did not dare to take such an adventure.
The economic opportunities of the current Russian Federation are even more scarce. And we must honestly admit that our country is not rich and many millions of people live between poverty and misery, and the economy is frankly weak, with a tendency to deteriorate in the very near future. She simply will not pull the naval race. Someone, of course, will say, they say, the fleet is a matter of sovereign importance, and the people will shrink. Of course, there have been cases in history when Russian leaders decided to play the ruler of the seas to the detriment of their people, but they often ended badly.
The first attempt (not counting Peter's times) occurred during the industrial boom in the Russian Empire in the 1890-1900s, when an unprecedentedly powerful navy was built. At the same time, tens of millions of people lived from hand to mouth, both in villages and in cities on the workers' outskirts. The result is logical - Tsushima and the first Russian revolution.
The second attempt to create an ocean-going fleet was made in the 1970s and 1980s by the Soviet leadership. What came out in the end was a heterogeneous collection of ships of various projects and their modifications, often imperfect. But the goal was achieved: the socialist giants plowed the seas, terrifying the inhabitants of the small island states and arousing the respect of the larger powers. Even in the opinion of the Americans, the USSR already had a "blue water fleet" - that is, capable of operating effectively far from its shores. However, the Soviet inhabitants by that time were not interested in cruisers with aircraft carriers, but in the quantity, sausages, butter and sweets on the shelves. Well, jeans with rock music. They would gladly exchange all the naval ambitions of their leaders for full shelves, which in the end used certain forces. The result is the collapse of the country and the once mighty fleet is heading for pins and needles. So sausage and condensed milk won global ambitions.
Thus, we come to an important lesson: the size of the fleet should not exceed the financial capabilities of the country. Relatively speaking, if leaders for the sake of cruisers force the population to eat nettles and bark from trees, then the population will soon send such leaders and their cruisers to the scrap. It is impossible to strain the capabilities of the economy above its limit, but it is better not to approach this limit. This lesson is well learned, for example, by the Chinese. They first tightened up the economic parameters, provided their entire huge population with a minimum of consumer goods, and then began building a large naval force.
2. Geographical location of the country
If a power is located on a peninsula (Italy, South Korea) or on the islands (Japan, Britain), then a powerful fleet is vital for its defense. If a country has a developed maritime trade (USA, China), or extensive maritime possessions (France, Britain, Japan, USA), it is also impossible to do without naval forces of the proper level.
Russia is a deeply continental power and even a dull naval blockade will not force it to surrender. She can arrange the necessary supplies by land and through inland water bodies.
History has proved more than once that the Black Sea and Baltic fleets are simply locked in their seas and their strengthening is absolutely inappropriate. There it is enough to have a couple of serious pennants to demonstrate the flag, and the rest to give to the "mosquito" component. In the event of the outbreak of war, both seas will be shot through by aircraft and cruise missiles of both sides of the conflict, and the ships, at best, will become part of the coastal air defense. At worst, targets.
The same applies to the Caspian Flotilla. After the outbreak of hostilities in a remote theater of operations (for example, in the Arctic), even if it manages to cross the Volga-Don Canal into the Black Sea, the united Caspian-Black Sea squadron will simply not be released through the straits by the Turks. You will either have to break through with a fight, or turn back.
The Northern Fleet is simply locked in ice for a significant part of the year. Only submarines have full scope there. Only the Pacific Fleet has relative freedom of action. However, his "freedom" also largely depends on the political positions of Korea and Japan.
Bottom line. Of the four fleets and one flotilla, it makes sense to keep large forces of surface ships and submarines on only two, which have direct access to the oceans.
3. Geopolitical ambitions of the leadership
The USSR had a mighty ocean-going fleet, for the whole world was the zone of its interests. There were Soviet bases and satellite countries in all parts of the world, and our military specialists operated practically everywhere, from the countries of South America and Africa to Asia and Antarctica. The sailors of the Land of the Soviets were fully prepared for the fact that they would have to storm London or Tokyo. This is evidenced by at least the presence of such giants as "Ivan Rogov" - although they were built and very few, but the offensive orientation of the ships can be clearly traced.
Today's Russia has much more modest plans. There are no more aggressive strategies, which means that the naval forces must be appropriate. Now the Russian Federation is building just such a fleet, a coastal zone fleet. Look at the ships under construction now. Corvettes of projects 20380, frigates of projects 22350, 11356, etc. All these are typical ships of the coastal and shelf zone defense. No overseas ambitions can be traced here. The only exception is the Mistral (a ship of the expeditionary forces), but here we are dealing with a purely political deal. Nevertheless, the Mistral, accompanied by two or three frigates 22350, is quite capable of inconveniencing a country the size of Georgia.
Mistral, in addition to the disadvantages already listed more than once, is bad for one more. In addition to escort ships, an aircraft carrier must be attached to it if we want to have a full-fledged expeditionary force. True, why we need this expeditionary group and whether it is better to invest this money in the development of combat aviation or even in civilian spheres is still a big question. Great Britain and France have similar expeditionary groups (aircraft carrier, helicopter carrier, escort ships, supply ships), but in recent decades they have been fighting more for American interests than for their own.
Summarizing
Due to the geographical location and economic condition of Russia, a large fleet is categorically contraindicated, at least at the current stage of development. The Russian Navy should be a compact organism, with professional teams, developed coastal infrastructure and small but modern ships. In any case, if we talk about the surface fleet. At the same time, it is necessary to develop naval aviation and build a network of coastal airfields, for the experience of World War II and the Falkled Wars directly showed that aviation is the most terrible enemy of even the most powerful ships. Judging by the vector taken by the country's leadership, it is this principle that will be implemented in the coming decades.
