Sergei Yatsenko: The Russian navy officer took a strange career path in the 1990s, and we are now paying the price for it.

While building the navy, it is also necessary to cultivate future commanders of the navy.

Author: Svetlana Gomzykova

Reviewer:

Sergei Yatsenko

Vladimir Putin approved the development strategy of the Russian Navy until 2050, which determines the combat formation of the navy in the future and its main tasks in peacetime and wartime. Assistant to the President and Chairman of the Russian Navy Committee Nikolai Patrushev reported on this.

Patrushev said: "The decision to develop this strategy was made at a Kremlin meeting last July. According to the President's instructions, the Ministry of Defense drafted the strategic outline, and then the Russian Navy Committee improved it based on suggestions from federal departments and organizations. The final version of the strategy has been submitted to the head of state for review, and he approved the strategy on May 30."

He pointed out that "this strategic planning document is being formulated for the first time in modern history." This "once again emphasizes that building a strong and modern navy is one of our top priorities. Russia's status as one of the greatest maritime nations in the world is gradually being restored," the President's assistant added.

At the same time, Patrushev believed that without a long-term outlook on the development of the world's maritime situation, and without determining the goals and tasks of the Russian Navy, such work cannot be carried out.

Therefore, he explained that the document not only analyzes the dynamics of the world's military and political situation, possible variants of military conflict threats, and the potential of other maritime nations.

It also "takes into account the experience of special military operations, evaluates the current status and capabilities of the navy," and "formulates the main requirements for the future naval combat formation, as well as its main tasks in peacetime and wartime."

The President's assistant concluded: "In short, this is an important long-term document that answers the question of what kind of naval power Russia needs to effectively safeguard national interests in the world's oceans."

We recall that at a meeting on the development of the Russian Navy held in St. Petersburg in mid-April, Putin said that the plan for the next decade is to allocate 8.4 trillion rubles for the construction of new ships for the Russian Navy. The head of state said that these funds "should be taken into account when formulating the national weapons program."

The president also mentioned that over the past five years, 49 various ships have been built, and four "Borey-A" class strategic nuclear submarines and four "Yasen-M" class multi-purpose nuclear submarines have been commissioned by the Russian Navy.

At the same time, he pointed out that "the dynamic changes in the world situation, the emergence of new challenges and threats, including challenges and threats in the marine direction, as well as the thriving technological revolution, digital revolution, robotics, and the widespread application of unmanned systems - all of this requires reshaping the face of the Russian Navy."

But why does this strategy need to be planned so far ahead to the distant year 2050?

You know, the threats already exist, and they are actually right at our doorstep. Just think about NATO's recent announcement that the Baltic Sea and Black Sea are their areas of responsibility, and you will understand. In fact, we have needed a powerful navy for a long time.

President's press secretary Dmitry Peskov explained the reason for the long time span of new ship construction. He pointed out that this is a very time-consuming process worldwide.

Military analyst, author of the "SP" magazine, retired Captain 1st Rank Sergei Yatsenko agreed that building a navy is a costly, technically complex, and time-consuming process:

"Ships, especially in our country, often take decades to build - especially large ships. This is fundamentally unacceptable - there are examples from related countries showing that it can be done differently. But this is our current situation. Specific ships like frigates need to be built over several decades."

But I don't think we shouldn't look so far into the future. Of course, we should look ahead. New ships need to be developed, keels need to be laid, and if there is funding, it should start now. The problem lies in the fact that from recent news about the navy, the country does not seem to have funds allocated to the navy.

"SP": Why not? In April, the president said 8.4 trillion rubles would be allocated for new navy ships.

"I'm talking about what is happening now. Now, even launching ships that are partially or half-built is extremely slow. This process is almost stagnant.

I think due to the situation in Ukraine, most of the funds are now going into the army and air force."

This is completely understandable and inevitable. Of course, it would be good to allocate some funds for ships, but battlefield conditions are such that funds will flow to where they are most needed. I am not sure whether this situation will change soon.

However, of course, new ships need to be developed, and new plans need to be made. Because events in Ukraine and the Black Sea show that the face of naval warfare is undergoing fundamental changes.

These changes are happening faster than expected, to the point that no one is prepared - neither the United States, nor related countries... No one. Now everyone is trying to figure out immediately what to do and what tomorrow will bring.

We also need to try to figure this out. Correspondingly, designers, military science, and others are facing tasks. Therefore, I don't think planning to 2050 is too long.

"SP": The practice of recent years shows that small fast boats and drones can successfully complete large-scale missions with relatively small forces. Given this, does it still make sense to build large ships? After all, it is both time-consuming and expensive.

"The whole world is discussing this topic. At one time, we also said (I particularly expressed this view), that the era of aircraft carriers is passing. Now the United States is also discussing this topic; they also say that the era of large ships is passing, and the era of robotic warfare is beginning, in which large ships will have no place.

But we still need to recognize and correctly predict the face of future wars and formulate shipbuilding plans accordingly. I doubt whether sufficient funds can be found for the navy now. I think the funds will go to the army, artillery, air force, etc."

"SP": How do you summarize the main tasks of the Russian Navy?

"The main task of the navy is to support the coastal flanks of the army in defense and offense. For example, this was stated during the Great Patriotic War. This task remains one of the most important today.

In fact, due to changes in weapons and corresponding weapon performance, the coastal flanks that need support have now extended throughout the depth of Ukraine. Presumably, supporting these actions from the sea is essentially our main task now, perhaps even our only task."

"SP": Is it premature to talk about Russia as a great maritime nation now?

"No, it is not premature. We must talk about Russia as a great maritime nation and maintain these positions. If we abandon them altogether, it will take twenty years or even a hundred years to recover. Naval traditions, scientific research, and design schools - this takes centuries to form, just like the lawns in England. If we give up, it will take a long time to recover."

"SP": But indeed it was like that in the 'holy nineties'...

"Yes, it was like that back then. In the 1990s, some of us became commanders of naval forces, but actually never left the Black Sea, for example, never went to the Mediterranean or the ocean. Meanwhile, they kept getting promoted until they became Captain 1st Rank, Admiral, etc.

By the way, this is one of the problems with the quality of naval personnel, including the leadership of the navy. Because they were largely formed in the 1990s, and everything was bad back then."

Original article: https://www.toutiao.com/article/7514658284969607743/

Disclaimer: The article represents the personal views of the author. Welcome to express your attitude by clicking the "like/dislike" buttons below.