Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Questions Thread: Russian Navy

    Share

    max steel
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2980
    Points : 3014
    Join date : 2015-02-12
    Location : South Pole

    Re: Questions Thread: Russian Navy

    Post  max steel on Mon Nov 02, 2015 8:25 pm

    Sailors sayinvariably subs “sink” the surface force.

    Yes, this has been true since the early 60's. Thats why Nuclear Attack Subs operate as long range ASW screen for Carrier Forces. This has helped a lot in preventing enemy subs from approaching. But, only to a limited degree. Ocean water is much more than it seems. temperature differences abound with depth and currents. Sound in water is reflected or deflected by temp erature gradiants.

    Long and short in, a Sub measures these temperature differences constantly, and can hide with ease in and under layers. Fresher and saltier water also creates reflection or defelction layers. again, the Sub records these constantly. Leaving plenty of hiding places.

    This all makes a Sub able to evade other subs and approach the surface task forces. Exercises repeatedly prove this. And when US Subs exercise, they attempt to mimic what we know about Chinese or Russian capabilites. Their sub does not assume American capabilites and use them to the full, they try to mimic the supposed enemy.

    But is it true that with Russian submarines this often can't be done, due to the large operational technical differences ??

    It is an axiom in the Submarine fleet and in the Anti Submarine Warfare schools that Subs sink Carriers. Thats just how it is .

    KiloGolf
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1302
    Points : 1324
    Join date : 2015-09-01
    Location : Macedonia, Hellas

    Project 1174: Ivan Rogov

    Post  KiloGolf on Sat Dec 12, 2015 1:03 am

    Why has this class been abandoned by the Russian Navy. I know the 90s and early 00s left all three unused, but surely the remaining to can be brought back to service. It's such a waste to not use something you have. Especially M Moskalenko is quite new, built just in 1990. Shocked





    and here's a shot taken last summer:
    http://www.shipspotting.com/gallery/photo.php?lid=2274791

    PS. Syrian express can surely use one of them, if not both.

    marat
    Junior Sergeant
    Junior Sergeant

    Posts : 103
    Points : 103
    Join date : 2015-04-26

    Re: Questions Thread: Russian Navy

    Post  marat on Sat Dec 12, 2015 11:32 am

    Russia will have no big LS at least in next 6 years and i would be great to see Rogov on sea again. but i nevere heard that they planed to do so...

    Rodion_Romanovic
    Private
    Private

    Posts : 5
    Points : 7
    Join date : 2015-12-30

    Re: Questions Thread: Russian Navy

    Post  Rodion_Romanovic on Wed Dec 30, 2015 9:24 pm

    marat wrote:Russia will have no big LS at least in next 6 years and i would be great to see Rogov on sea again. but i nevere heard that they planed to do so...

    They are considering it, but it would be quite expensive to upgrade these 2 (comparable with the cost of a new vessel, and they need an available shipyard and a few years...
    Apparently Yantar Shipyard could do it, but not before 2018.

    there are two articles (in russian) about it, you can use open them with google chrome and use the function to automatically translate them

    EDIT: I'm not yet allowed to post links(since I just joined), I'll just  quote here a quick extract from the articles


    I"m posting here just two small extracts
    using google translate for the first article (dated May 27, 2015
    vpk-news.ru/news/25408 wrote:

    "Cases of these ships are in good condition, but to restore their technical readiness, if necessary, will require a considerable amount of repairs, including the replacement of the main power plants" - a spokesman said.

    At the same time, he stressed that "as long as no decision to this effect has been taken."
    and for the second...
    gazeta.ru/politics/2014/12/22_a_6355693.shtml wrote:

    A source in the military-industrial circles told "Gazeta.ru", that one of the options to replace "Mistral" is the restoration of the Soviet large landing ships (BDK) Project 1174 "Rhinoceros." Who is the preservation of the two ships of the project - "Alexander Nikolaev" and "Mitrofan Moskalenko." To restore them, it will take several years and billions of rubles.

    "There is, firstly, the need to examine the body, how it is worn, it should be changed. Surely already rotted lightweight aluminum bulkheads, may require replacement siding. And secondly, it is necessary to completely change all the equipment on modern, "- told" Gazeta.ru "a senior official of the Nevsky Design Bureau (PCB), to develop" Rhinoceros. "

    According to him, the budget restoration work has not miscalculate.

    "Everything will depend on money. The more it is allocated, the more people will be able to do it. First you need to develop terms of reference, we can do it with the leadership of the Navy, and then will need to select a plant that will upgrade. And it must be a large factory. If there's going to work 1.5 thousand. People, of whom 500 were allocated for repair, and 300 - on the ship, such repair will be delayed at least ten years ", - said the representative of the Nevsky PKB.


    He cited the example of the project of modernization of the aircraft carrier "Admiral Gorshkov" aircraft carrier converted into an Indian "Vikramaditya". "This project took eight years, even to the" Sevmash ", and possibly" Sevmash "today does not have any other shipyard. Of course, "Gorshkov" four to six times more "Rhino" and "Sevmash" is now loaded for the full program, and will not do it "- said the" Gazety.Ru ".

    At the Baltic Shipyard "Yantar", where both ships were built, "Gazeta.ru" confirmed that they are ready to take an order for modernization "Moskalenko" and "Nikolaev", but not before 2018. At the same time representative of the plant suggested that would be wiser to engage in the modernization of one of the Far Eastern shipyards with specialists from other companies.

    Military expert, founder of the portal Military Russia Dmitry Kornev said "Gazeta.ru" that without significant alterations "Rhinos" will not be able to replace the "Mistral" and major changes may catch up with the cost of the creation of a new ship.



    From what I read, the only new thing that could be used for the sirian express will be the Ivan Gren that will be commissioned in the next few months

    nastle77
    Junior Sergeant
    Junior Sergeant

    Posts : 137
    Points : 179
    Join date : 2015-07-25

    Questions Thread: Russian Navy

    Post  nastle77 on Wed Apr 20, 2016 5:42 am

    Was there any plan to use the ICBM in the ASUW or ASW role during the cold war era ?

    Tsavo Lion
    Private
    Private

    Posts : 40
    Points : 42
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Re: Questions Thread: Russian Navy

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Mon Aug 15, 2016 10:14 pm

    I wonder, can a MiG-25/31 safely take off the Adm. Kuznetsov and/or new Storm project carrier, with/without catapults? In other words, is the flight deck long enough & are the engines powerful enough? I know they won't be navalized, but those B-25s in the Dolittle raid weren't either!


    Last edited by Tsavo Lion on Mon Aug 15, 2016 10:44 pm; edited 1 time in total (Reason for editing : expand questions)

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15490
    Points : 16197
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    can a MiG-25/31 safely take off the Adm. Kuznetsov

    Post  GarryB on Tue Aug 16, 2016 11:41 am

    Not the MiG-25 or MiG-31... they are simply too heavy to accelerate to flight speed over such a short distance.

    Both aircraft are like trucks... they can get up to high speed over a long period of acceleration, but they are not sports cars.

    I did always think the MiG-23 would be a good carrier based aircraft... it had excellent acceleration and fitted with an AL-41 it would have impressive takeoff performance... but you would be better off with a PAK FA or MiG-35/Su-35.


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    Tsavo Lion
    Private
    Private

    Posts : 40
    Points : 42
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Re: Questions Thread: Russian Navy

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Wed Aug 17, 2016 11:03 pm

    The MiG-23K was a proposed navalized version based on the MiG-23ML. A modified MiG-27 was tried on Nitka complex.  
     



    How about rocket assisted carrier takeoff for MiG-25 or MiG-31?

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15490
    Points : 16197
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Questions Thread: Russian Navy

    Post  GarryB on Thu Aug 18, 2016 12:43 pm

    Even just the cost in rockets would make it a bad idea... but the danger of rockets on the flight deck, and the fact that fully loaded these aircraft are very very heavy and even with a catapult would be marginal in terms of flight speed... meaning any problems on takeoff or landing and you lose a very big very heavy very expensive aircraft.

    The F-111 was originally going to be a carrier aircraft but was also deemed to be too heavy and it had the advantage of a big straight wing on takeoff (swing wing of course).

    The radar and big missiles developed for the F-111 for use on carriers as a big interceptor were later adapted to the F-14...

    It would make more sense to adapt the PAK FA to the carrier role than to make the MiGs heavier by strengthening them for carrier operations...

    The MiG-23 probably only lacked payload options as it pretty much was limited to two wing mounted BVR missiles in the form of R-24s and two underbody mounted twin launchers for R-60s... so two R-24s and four R-60s, with good flight range and speed.

    The fact is that the MiG-29 can do that better already.

    Was there any plan to use the ICBM in the ASUW or ASW role during the cold war era ?

    Not as far as I know. The problem would be targeting the ICBM to the target location as there was no direct communication between the Navy and Strategic Missile forces.

    The navy already had plenty of tactical nuclear weapons so the extra range of an ICBM would be overkill.

    If they did they would more likely use SLBMs rather than ICBMs, but I suspect enemy land targets would be a higher priority.


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    Tsavo Lion
    Private
    Private

    Posts : 40
    Points : 42
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Re: Questions Thread: Russian Navy

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Thu Aug 18, 2016 8:38 pm

    ..fully loaded these aircraft are very very heavy and even with a catapult would be marginal in terms of flight speed...
    I meant the occasional recon/strike mission by non-navalized, not fully fueled & armed MiG-25/31. They could get their fuel tanks topped off in the air and recover on land!
    From airforce-technology.com:
    The MiG-25R is a tactical reconnaissance aircraft. The MiG-25RB is a variant for bombing area and large targets. The aircraft is fitted with a reconnaissance station, aerial camera, topographic aerial camera, the Peteng sighting and navigation system to bomb programmed targets, and electronic countermeasures (ECM) equipment, which includes active jamming and electronic reconnaissance systems.
    The MiG-25BM aircraft has the capability to launch guided missiles against ground targets, and to destroy area targets, targets with known co-ordinates, and enemy radars. The airborne anti-radar Kh-58 (Nato codename AS-11 Kilter) missiles are capable of destroying enemy radars, such as the targeting radars of Hawk-type air defence missile systems, at stand-off ranges. The launch range of the Kh-58 is from 40-300km.

    nastle77
    Junior Sergeant
    Junior Sergeant

    Posts : 137
    Points : 179
    Join date : 2015-07-25

    Re: Questions Thread: Russian Navy

    Post  nastle77 on Fri Aug 19, 2016 4:06 am

    GarryB wrote:Even just the cost in rockets would make it a bad idea... but the danger of rockets on the flight deck, and the fact that fully loaded these aircraft are very very heavy and even with a catapult would be marginal in terms of flight speed... meaning any problems on takeoff or landing and you lose a very big very heavy very expensive aircraft.

    The F-111 was originally going to be a carrier aircraft but was also deemed to be too heavy and it had the advantage of a big straight wing on takeoff (swing wing of course).

    The radar and big missiles developed for the F-111 for use on carriers as a big interceptor were later adapted to the F-14...

    It would make more sense to adapt the PAK FA to the carrier role than to make the MiGs heavier by strengthening them for carrier operations...

    The MiG-23 probably only lacked payload options as it pretty much was limited to two wing mounted BVR missiles in the form of R-24s and two underbody mounted twin launchers for R-60s... so two R-24s and four R-60s, with good flight range and speed.

    The fact is that the MiG-29 can do that better already.

    Was there any plan to use the ICBM in the ASUW or ASW role during the cold war era ?

    Not as far as I know. The problem would be targeting the ICBM to the target location as there was no direct communication between the Navy and Strategic Missile forces.

    The navy already had plenty of tactical nuclear weapons so the extra range of an ICBM would be overkill.

    If they did they would more likely use SLBMs rather than ICBMs, but I suspect enemy land targets would be a higher priority.

    Thanks
    SLBM could they be targeted towards warships ? And what about the AS 15 cruise missiles carried by Bear H. Were they ever considered as anti ship weapons ?

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15490
    Points : 16197
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Questions Thread: Russian Navy

    Post  GarryB on Fri Aug 19, 2016 12:45 pm

    I meant the occasional recon/strike mission by non-navalized, not fully fueled & armed MiG-25/31. They could get their fuel tanks topped off in the air and recover on land!

    Their problem is that they are aerodynamically optimised for high altitude and high speed flight so they have thin low profile wings that are very low drag but also low lift... optimised for high speed flight not low speed takeoffs and landings.

    The MiG-25RB is an awesome variant, but it is also very limited.

    They carry 1,500kg bombs adapted to very high speed flight with special fuses that can operate at high speed at high temperatures... but they are not precision weapons.

    New developments in satellite guided technology could revolutionise their performance, but at the end of the day the Russian navy is on the verge of introducing hypersonic scramjet powered anti ship missiles... it wont be a huge step to make them land attack capable, so instead of a Mach 3 bomber taking off from a carrier to deliver a bomb at high speed they could have a stealthy PAK FA based aircraft with Zircon carried that hits the target at mach 7 or 8... and not have to fly over the target area.

    The latest version of the Kh-58 will also be carried internally on the PAK FA... it is smaller and lighter and has folding fins and has a max range from a slower aircraft like the PAK FA of 245km from a high altitude launch... it has a range of 75km with a launch from 200m altitude.


    SLBM could they be targeted towards warships ?

    I suppose it could be possible, but I think it unlikely. Most SLBMs would have fixed land based targets programmed in to their guidance systems and I doubt changing them would be common or likely.

    Most SLBMs would have coordinates they target, so if given time and the correct information they might be used against enemy surface vessels but in practical terms it is much easier and cheaper and simpler to use one of their large anti ship missiles... many of which carried nuclear warheads for that very purpose... missiles like Granit and Vulkan etc etc.

    And what about the AS 15 cruise missiles carried by Bear H. Were they ever considered as anti ship weapons ?

    They were guided to fixed coordinates... not moving targets. Their accuracy was low so a nuclear warhead and an area target was a necessity.

    Today with Calibr and Klub and terminal guidance then anti ship and land attack with conventional warheads becomes practical because the accuracy is good enough for direct hits.


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    Sponsored content

    Re: Questions Thread: Russian Navy

    Post  Sponsored content Today at 5:38 pm


      Current date/time is Sat Dec 10, 2016 5:38 pm