Several days prior transfer of the presidential power to V. Putin the head of the state D. Medvedev signed the decree “About the commander-in-chief of the Navy”. Vice admiral Victor Chirkov was appointed the new commander-in-chief.
At once after that appointment Internet portal “Flot.com” interviewed its readers, having asked them to answer simple question: “What do you wait from the new commander-in-chief of the Navy of Russia?”
Results of the poll struck me; more than 63% of readers specified that they wait further fall of status of the Navy. After all military fleet was always a basis of power of the state!
It is quite probable that respectful vice admiral Chirkov is the most worthy representative of our fleet, merited mariner. While it’s possible only to get surprised that people ceased to believe in expediency of personnel decisions in relation to the department of the Ministry of Defence! It’s awful that military seamen of Russia (I think that they are the main visitors of "Flot.com") consider that the Kremlin appoints the commander-in-chief of the Navy to worsen situation with the fleet …
I suggest readers to "walk" together with me along some statistical data taken from open Russian and foreign sources of information. May be our "walk" will become certain incentive to revision of positions of the Russian Federation in World’s water for high-ranking state officials.
It will be a question of fighting naval possibilities of “the partners in fight against terrorism” – of Russia and the USA.
So, the staff of the Navy of the Russian Federation totals 142 thousand people, while the USA have 332 thousand people plus 124 thousand of reservists.
We have 16 nuclear submarines with ballistic missiles, 5 from them are under repair. The Americans have 14 such nuclear submarines and all of them are in working condition.
Our Navy has 21 nuclear submarines with cruise missiles, in fact we have only 11 pieces as 10 are under repair. The Navy of the USA has 9 nuclear submarine of such type and, certainly, all of them are in good condition.
We have only one aircraft carrier, "partners" - 11 units.
Our Navy has 7 guided missile cruisers (URO), but 3 from them – under repair. The Americans have three times more such cruisers URO and all of them are efficient.
There are 12 destroyers URO in Russia, half of them is in the repairing docks, the USA have already 57 of them.
The Russian Navy possesses URO frigates in number of 9 pieces (one is under repair), the American Navy has 30 such frigates.
We have 24 amphibious ships, 5 from them are under repair and our "partner" has 32 units.
There are 23 units of multi-purpose nuclear submarines in the Navy of the Russian Federation, 46 - in the USA.
We have no amphibious assault ships, the Americans have 9.
Military analysts consider that the Navy of the USA on its fighting potential exceeds the Navy of Russia twice. We shouldn’t forget also that military ships of other countries entering NATO also are not engaged in fishing, they are also striking sea power of this aggressive military block. In a word, admiral Chirkov gets very troublesome unit and it’ not clear what in this economy more important nowadays is – cool mariner or skillful repairmen?
…I think it is possible to assume without going into details of military statistics of land forces and aircraft that as a whole to compare fighting possibilities of the Armed forces of today's Russia and its bewitched "partners" is ungrateful for our public mood business. Certainly, carrying out of grandiose military parades is patriotic show, but for some reason I see here only variant of senseless horror story for our “strategic partners” in fight against terrorism, thus “patners” know perfectly well real condition of fighting capacity of the army and fleet of Russia.
The most unpleasant is that terrible on its consequences “military hangover” can come with tremendous speed; we will find ourselves in such close “partners’ embraces” that we will fail to breathe before we know it. For already two tens years heads of Russia have been working over the target of ensuring harmony between the democratic West and the Russian Federation allegedly aspiring to democracy, the target which they themselves have put once. Harmony is, of course, fine, especially, if it doesn’t damage defense capacity of the country.
It’s necessary to face the truth: the Russian Federation is still alive as there are still hydrocarbonic raw materials in its subsoil and old strategic silo-based intercontinental range missile. Foreigners need oil and gas and a guarantee that there’s “a button from a fool” on the firing panels of nuclear missiles. They don’t need anything else from Russia; unless our beautiful women…
Therefore all plaints about need of presence of “great Russia” on a map accurately suits framework of the geopolitical myth; a country can’t be great if militarily it concedes to the potential opponent, if a number of all internal police and retaliatory formations exceeds the number of defensive forces of the state.
Such situation testifies that the Kremlin is more afraid of the Russian oppositionists, than of the invasion of the foreign aggressor… sorry, partners on fight against terrorism on the territory of Russia. I can’t restrain myself from reminding inhabitants of the Kremlin the phrase of the wise patriot that the army and fleet are the most reliable partners of our country.
From editorial board: Unfortunately, our dear author even embellished a picture - condition of the fleet of the Russian Federation is even worse. Firstly, the only aircraft carrier of Russia, unlike the American one, has diesel, not the nuclear installation that sharply reduces level of its autonomy. Besides, its condition is so that it goes into the sea only accompanied by a tow.
Our nuclear submarines with ballistic missiles on arms are out-of-date and are ready to be written-off. Nuclear submarines of new generation, as we know, were designed under the rockets “Bulava” which prospects are very foggy. But even if it’ll be brought up to the working condition, production of necessary rockets will take years, while write-off of out-of-date nuclear submarines are predicted in the short term.
The bulk of cruisers and destroyers of the Russian fleet should already practically go to the write-off due to their long-term service. And so on.
Secondly - the country leaders are perfectly well informed on condition of fleet and strategic nuclear forces. But, obviously, it doesn’t worry them a lot, otherwise they wouldn't entrust solution of the problem of army to a person who has worked in the sphere of furniture and solution of problems of war industry - to the diplomat.