Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Russian Navy: Status & News #3

    Share

    Isos
    Master Sergeant
    Master Sergeant

    Posts : 304
    Points : 308
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Re: Russian Navy: Status & News #3

    Post  Isos on Sun Oct 30, 2016 5:22 pm

    Rosoboronexport  Naval Systems  Export Catalogue from 2003

    https://fr.scribd.com/doc/30810999/Rosoboronexport-Naval-Systems-Catalogue


    Rosoboronexport Aerospace Systems Export Catalogue

    © Rosoboronexport 2005

    https://fr.scribd.com/doc/30810861/Rosoboronexport-Aerospace-Systems-Catalogue


    Rosoboronexport land forces equipement Export Catalogue 2003

    https://fr.scribd.com/doc/30301368/Rosoboronexport-Land-Forces-Weapons-Catalogue


    All stuff for export presented with datas !!!

    Many other books at the bottom of the page.

    zardof
    Private
    Private

    Posts : 15
    Points : 21
    Join date : 2016-01-04
    Age : 57
    Location : France

    Re: Russian Navy: Status & News #3

    Post  zardof on Fri Nov 04, 2016 2:53 pm

    Newcomers to Mediteranean sea actually on Marmara sea (ref Bosphorus strait and Sputnick)
    BDK-64 ROP 158 Caesar Kunikov
    craneship  KIL158
    salvage tug SB-565 Pr N Muru Pr22870

    zardof
    Private
    Private

    Posts : 15
    Points : 21
    Join date : 2016-01-04
    Age : 57
    Location : France

    Re: Russian Navy: Status & News #3

    Post  zardof on Sun Nov 06, 2016 12:38 pm

    zardof wrote:Newcomers to Mediteranean sea actually on Marmara sea (ref Bosphorus strait and Sputnick)
    BDK-64 ROP 158 Caesar Kunikov
    craneship  KIL158
    salvage tug SB-565 Pr N Muru Pr22870

    another newcomer to mediteranean sea :
    Fregate KRI V 494 Ad Grigorovich Pr11356


    http://flot.com/2016/%D0%A1%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%B4%D0%B8%D0%B7%D0%B5%D0%BC%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B5%D0%9C%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B513/

    JohninMK
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3360
    Points : 3403
    Join date : 2015-06-16
    Location : England

    Re: Russian Navy: Status & News #3

    Post  JohninMK on Thu Nov 10, 2016 5:12 pm

    The Yantar, having completed checking out the cable system in the eastern Med is now in the Gulf. Clearly up to no good Smile


    JohninMK
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3360
    Points : 3403
    Join date : 2015-06-16
    Location : England

    Re: Russian Navy: Status & News #3

    Post  JohninMK on Sat Nov 12, 2016 4:47 pm


    Steffan Watkins ‏@steffanwatkins 1h1 hour ago

    Is Russia tapping @GBI_Network fiber optic cables, or removing American taps on Iranian cables @ReutersIran @QatarToday @TelecomReviewME ?

    Steffan Watkins ‏@steffanwatkins 2h2 hours ago

    Is the #Russian Navy "Research Vessel" #Yantar parked above @GBI_Network's underwater backbone in the Gulf (29.05583°N,49.78909°E) @AJENews?

    Steffan Watkins ‏@steffanwatkins 3h3 hours ago

    #Russian #Navy RV #Yantar still stationary in the #PersianGulf (2+ days); Wassup? #OSINT #AIS #ВМФ #Iran Map: https://drive.google.com/open?id=1WFIX0PAK1SJq35usKwR4znbeS8M&usp=sharing …


    hoom
    Senior Sergeant
    Senior Sergeant

    Posts : 226
    Points : 228
    Join date : 2016-05-06

    Re: Russian Navy: Status & News #3

    Post  hoom on Sun Nov 13, 2016 12:12 am

    What do you guys make of the reports of a Walrus class sub being chased away from Kuznetsov group a few days back?
    http://tass.com/defense/911282
    "Earlier today, at 06:50 on November 9 the search and attack group consisting of anti-submarine ships The Severomorsk and The Vice-Admiral Kulakov spotted a diesel submarine of the Dutch Navy (presumably Walrus), which was trying to approach the Northern Fleet’s aircraft carrier group for surveillance purposes."
    Northern Fleet's anti-submarine ships forced the submarine to leave the area where Russia's Admiral Kuznetsov aircraft carrier was at the moment.
    "The crews of two anti-submarine ships, The Severomorsk and The Vice-Admiral Kulakov, easily identified the submarine that was 20 kilometers away using the standard onboard hydroacoustics systems and data obtained from anti-submarine helicopters Ka-27 PL. Despite the submarine’s attempts to evade surveillance a stable hydroacoustic contact was established with it. The ships kept track of the submarine for more than an hour and forced it to leave the area of the aircraft carrier-led group," Konashenkov said.
    According to the ministry, the submarine's maneuvers in the Mediterranean were dangerous and could have led to grave navigation consequences.
    "The clumsy attempts to carry out dangerous maneuvers in the direct proximity of the Russian group of warships could have led to grave navigation consequences," he said.
    The ministry official also said the Russian Navy’s aircraft carrier group regularly discovered NATO’s submarines on its way to the Mediterranean.
    "Throughout its voyage, a Northern Fleet detachment regularly discovered NATO’s submarines along the route. Actions by USS Virginia, which was trying to spy on the Russian vessels, were recorded in early November," Konashenkov said.
    "It is noteworthy that these large-displacement submarines are not meant for conducting surveillance," he noted.
    Seems to me it's either a a shocking proof of very good ASW or covering for ASW shortcomings.
    If they really detected & confirmed type as a Walrus @20km with hull mounted sonar it's pretty impressive, maybe moreso detection of Virginia.
    20km with a helicopter maybe more believable?

    Walrus class notoriously claimed complete virtual destruction of a US Carrier Battle Group during an exercise a few years back.
    Certainly Walrus has been in the Eastern Med since it was at Malta in Sept.
    Haven't seen anything where Dutch deny the incident.

    There are inconsistencies: if they detected it @20km & forced it away from that range they should hardly be calling any manoeuvres dangerous or in 'direct proximity', presumably at some point it was a lot closer than 20km?
    I'm also curious about claiming certainly a Dutch sub but only 'presumably' a Walrus while specifically claiming to detect USS Virginia rather than a Virginia class.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15439
    Points : 16146
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian Navy: Status & News #3

    Post  GarryB on Sun Nov 13, 2016 3:59 am

    Different vessels even within the same class make different noises and therefore can be uniquely identified using those sound signatures.

    I believe the report mentions helicopters were used for tracking the sub targets but I suspect hull mounted sonars would also be used for initial detection.

    Probably the main reason they have been taking their time... they have likely been listening for NATO all the way... this is a training voyage so why would you not train to intercept and persecute enemy Subs... there are unlikely to be many in Syria to play with...

    The practise and coordination of forces will be useful.


    _________________
    “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

    hoom
    Senior Sergeant
    Senior Sergeant

    Posts : 226
    Points : 228
    Join date : 2016-05-06

    Re: Russian Navy: Status & News #3

    Post  hoom on Sun Nov 13, 2016 4:17 am

    Probably the main reason they have been taking their time... they have likely been listening for NATO all the way
    I was actually just thinking that yeah.
    Possibly even part of the reason for feeding the hype/fear a bit -> make sure they attract a bunch of subs to track/record.

    AlfaT8
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1149
    Points : 1162
    Join date : 2013-02-01

    Re: Russian Navy: Status & News #3

    Post  AlfaT8 on Sun Nov 13, 2016 1:23 pm

    I've been wondering for a while now, but why hasn't Russia deployed any Piranya-750 midget subs, they seem very useful for coastal defense especially in the BS and the Baltic, it looks like the 750B version might carry 4 Clubs/Kalibers, cheaper and faster to build than even conventional Kilo subs, and since there short range anyway you might as well make them completely Electric (Batt/AIP), no navy in there right mind would dare enter Russian brown waters with these things around.

    And there's also the possibility of deploying these in rivers so you'll also have long range Kalibers, ready to fire there.




    Isos
    Master Sergeant
    Master Sergeant

    Posts : 304
    Points : 308
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Re: Russian Navy: Status & News #3

    Post  Isos on Sun Nov 13, 2016 2:43 pm

    AlfaT8 wrote:I've been wondering for a while now, but why hasn't Russia deployed any Piranya-750 midget subs, they seem very useful for coastal defense especially in the BS and the Baltic, it looks like the 750B version might carry 4 Clubs/Kalibers, cheaper and faster to build than even conventional Kilo subs, and since there short range anyway you might as well make them completely Electric (Batt/AIP), no navy in there right mind would dare enter Russian brown waters with these things around.

    And there's also the possibility of deploying these in rivers so you'll also have long range Kalibers, ready to fire there.


    Having a few of them would be nice but they jut can't replace Kilos. They can be dangerous but once they lunched their weapons they are defenceless. A kilo can rearm its tubes and lunch another Attack. Torpedos doesn't have 100% probability of kill specially now that ships are armed with active anti torpedo torpedos.

    However for deep reco and point defence they can be usefull.

    Why would you send a sub in a river Shocked, you can lunch Kalibr from a truck: much much cheaper.

    AlfaT8
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1149
    Points : 1162
    Join date : 2013-02-01

    Re: Russian Navy: Status & News #3

    Post  AlfaT8 on Sun Nov 13, 2016 3:32 pm

    Isos wrote:
    AlfaT8 wrote:I've been wondering for a while now, but why hasn't Russia deployed any Piranya-750 midget subs, they seem very useful for coastal defense especially in the BS and the Baltic, it looks like the 750B version might carry 4 Clubs/Kalibers, cheaper and faster to build than even conventional Kilo subs, and since there short range anyway you might as well make them completely Electric (Batt/AIP), no navy in there right mind would dare enter Russian brown waters with these things around.

    And there's also the possibility of deploying these in rivers so you'll also have long range Kalibers, ready to fire there.


    Having a few of them would be nice but they jut can't replace Kilos. They can be dangerous but once they lunched their weapons they are defenceless. A kilo can rearm its tubes and lunch another Attack. Torpedos doesn't have 100% probability of kill specially now that ships are armed with active anti torpedo torpedos.


    However for deep reco and point defence they can be usefull.

    Why would you send a sub in a river Shocked, you can lunch Kalibr from a truck: much much cheaper.

    You sure they can't reload, i haven't been able to find a proper diagram.
    That said, i am more interested in using them as cruise missile launchers, with a range of 2500 to 4000km, also i am not proposing these as replacement for the Kilos.
    Uhm, i only know of the Paket anti-torpedo system, i don't recall there being any western counterpart, much less such a systems being actively deployed?

    Point defense?? ...no, more Kaliber luanchers, harder to detect, target and well dispersed.

    Because of the INF treaty.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15439
    Points : 16146
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian Navy: Status & News #3

    Post  GarryB on Sun Nov 13, 2016 9:36 pm

    Because of the INF treaty.

    They developed a model that can be launched from a shipping container... presumably such weapons can be launched from any shipping container anywhere... whether it is on a ship or the train yard or a train or truck.

    It would not take much adaptation to allow them to be released from the back of a cargo aircraft in mid flight like air dropped cargo... a new Il-476 could carry 60 tons of missiles in launch containers... so lets say 20 missiles... assuming the shipping crates are not used and a small sleeve container for the missiles is used... an An-124 could therefore carry about 70 odd missiles and drop them out the back of the aircraft at say 10,000m... a parachute deploys and the missile falls out the bottom... deploys its wings and pulls up 90 degrees and starts its flight to its target...

    Small subs are useful for certain things but for most tasks larger vessels are more useful for a much wider range of tasks... so it makes more sense to build a couple of small vessels and rather more bigger vessels.


    _________________
    “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

    AlfaT8
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1149
    Points : 1162
    Join date : 2013-02-01

    Re: Russian Navy: Status & News #3

    Post  AlfaT8 on Sun Nov 13, 2016 10:02 pm

    GarryB wrote:
    Because of the INF treaty.

    They developed a model that can be launched from a shipping container... presumably such weapons can be launched from any shipping container anywhere... whether it is on a ship or the train yard or a train or truck.

    It would not take much adaptation to allow them to be released from the back of a cargo aircraft in mid flight like air dropped cargo... a new Il-476 could carry 60 tons of missiles in launch containers... so lets say 20 missiles... assuming the shipping crates are not used and a small sleeve container for the missiles is used... an An-124 could therefore carry about 70 odd missiles and drop them out the back of the aircraft at say 10,000m... a parachute deploys and the missile falls out the bottom... deploys its wings and pulls up 90 degrees and starts its flight to its target...

    Small subs are useful for certain things but for most tasks larger vessels are more useful for a much wider range of tasks... so it makes more sense to build a couple of small vessels and rather more bigger vessels.

    Yes, yes, i am aware of the container option, but at the end of the day they're still limited to max 500km range and airdropping them from point A to point B will also take time.

    On the other hand, you could use midget subs carrying an equal load, but with a range of 2500km or more, so even with the subs short range it wouldn't matter as much, and the sub has the ability to relocate and also easily hide as well, they can also be used in rivers.
    I am all for bigger vessels, but by the looks of things, that's gonna take a long while, this is why Russia has been so focused on there Corvettes recently, so having some Piranyas in the water isn't a bad idea if you ask me.

    Isos
    Master Sergeant
    Master Sergeant

    Posts : 304
    Points : 308
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Re: Russian Navy: Status & News #3

    Post  Isos on Mon Nov 14, 2016 5:44 am


    You sure they can't reload, i haven't been able to find a proper diagram.
    That said, i am more interested in using them as cruise missile launchers, with a range of 2500 to 4000km, also i am not proposing these as replacement for the Kilos.
    Uhm, i only know of the Paket anti-torpedo system, i don't recall there being any western counterpart, much less such a systems being actively deployed?

    Point defense?? ...no, more Kaliber luanchers, harder to detect, target and well dispersed.

    Because of the INF treaty.

    They have like 4 or 6 torpedos fitted in their lunch tubes which for most project are 400 mm tubes and if it's a bigger one they carry less misiles. They doesn't have space for more munitions, if we talk about true midget subs. So you can't reload them. And reloading a midget sub at sea is not an easy task.

    Kilo and future VLS equiped Kalina can lunch Kalibr in great quantity.

    Yes there is Paket but I've also read that new small kalibr torpedo from the west can target torpedos too. It's not their main role however.

    Kalibr are like 2000+ km range so who cares if your lunch plateform is hard to detect. The design of the missile takes in consideration of survavibility of the lunch plateform and the ability of luching them behind your own line of defences. You can put the same amount of missile in container on 1 big merchand vessel as in 20 midget subs. The disperstion is not really needed as they can be program to follow a trajectory programmed in their computer.

    Having a plateform for lunching like just 4 Kalibr is not a cheap strategy. Plus the range and the endurence of midget subs are so bad that even a costal Kalibr system can do their job.

    INF treaty is for peace time. Container for Kalibr can be transfered from a ship to a truck in matter of minutes. Russia is fearing that USA does the same with their Mk-41 VLS used for the Euro ABM. They are saying "we respect INF treaty we put just anti air missiles in them" but actully they can replace them with 2000+ km range tomahwak missiles in matter of minutes.

    AlfaT8
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1149
    Points : 1162
    Join date : 2013-02-01

    Re: Russian Navy: Status & News #3

    Post  AlfaT8 on Mon Nov 14, 2016 9:34 pm

    Isos wrote:

    You sure they can't reload, i haven't been able to find a proper diagram.
    That said, i am more interested in using them as cruise missile launchers, with a range of 2500 to 4000km, also i am not proposing these as replacement for the Kilos.
    Uhm, i only know of the Paket anti-torpedo system, i don't recall there being any western counterpart, much less such a systems being actively deployed?

    Point defense?? ...no, more Kaliber luanchers, harder to detect, target and well dispersed.

    Because of the INF treaty.

    They have like 4 or 6 torpedos fitted in their lunch tubes which for most project are 400 mm tubes and if it's a bigger one they carry less misiles. They doesn't have space for more munitions, if we talk about true midget subs. So you can't reload them. And reloading a midget sub at sea is not an easy task.

    Kilo and future VLS equiped Kalina can lunch Kalibr in great quantity.

    Yes there is Paket but I've also read that new small kalibr torpedo from the west can target torpedos too. It's not their main role however.

    Kalibr are like 2000+ km range so who cares if your lunch plateform is hard to detect. The design of the missile takes in consideration of survavibility of the lunch plateform and the ability of luching them behind your own line of defences. You can put the same amount of missile in container on 1 big merchand vessel as in 20 midget subs. The disperstion is not really needed as they can be program to follow a trajectory programmed in their computer.

    Having a plateform for lunching like just 4 Kalibr is not a cheap strategy. Plus the range and the endurence of midget subs are so bad that even a costal Kalibr system can do their job.

    INF treaty is for peace time. Container for Kalibr can be transfered from a ship to a truck in matter of minutes. Russia is fearing that USA does the same with their Mk-41 VLS used for the Euro ABM. They are saying "we respect INF treaty we put just anti air missiles in them" but actully they can replace them with 2000+ km range tomahwak missiles in matter of minutes.

    Ok, let's go with that then since Midget subs are normally shoot and scoot.

    The hell, i was aware of the Kalina/Lada, but i wasn't aware Kilo's could use Kalibers from submerged positions, are these the 877s or the new 636.3??
    If it's the latter, then you only have 6 of them each carrying 10 Kaliber, it's good, but i prefer having more assets in the water.

    The issue with containers is that they're not dedicated sea based assets so they would still be considered ground based regardless, ergo have a max 500km range (supposedly), also don't expect NATO to hold back just because there on civilian vessels.
    Dispersion is needed if you want to maximize to survival of your offensive assets, make it as difficult as possible for your opponent to dislodge your assets.

    True, although i am not certain since this won't be your average midget sub and i am curious to see how much of a range it could have with today's technology, also like the containers, the coastal systems will also have a max 500km range (supposedly).

    If that's the case then i am worrying over nothing (and i don't think Kaliber is an AA asset), that said i still recommend building these anyway, you'll have a great product for countries out there that can't afford kilos.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15439
    Points : 16146
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian Navy: Status & News #3

    Post  GarryB on Tue Nov 15, 2016 4:32 am

    Yes, yes, i am aware of the container option, but at the end of the day they're still limited to max 500km range and airdropping them from point A to point B will also take time.

    No.

    A single missile container that can be released from a cargo aircraft in flight would be an airlaunched weapon and therefore not subject to the INF treaty which limits ground launched weapons.

    Put it on the back of a small river boat with an angle launch tube and rocket booster and again it is not land launched and therefore also not subject to the INF treaty so it can have a range of anything you like... 5,000km or more if you want...

    Ok, let's go with that then since Midget subs are normally shoot and scoot.

    The hell, i was aware of the Kalina/Lada, but i wasn't aware Kilo's could use Kalibers from submerged positions, are these the 877s or the new 636.3??
    If it's the latter, then you only have 6 of them each carrying 10 Kaliber, it's good, but i prefer having more assets in the water.

    Why waste time putting cruise missiles in SSKs... they have their own job to do... not waste their time attacking land targets. A single corvette can have 8 missiles ready to fire and are cheaper and easier to make than subs and can be used for other roles as well.

    The issue with containers is that they're not dedicated sea based assets so they would still be considered ground based regardless, ergo have a max 500km range (supposedly), also don't expect NATO to hold back just because there on civilian vessels.
    Dispersion is needed if you want to maximize to survival of your offensive assets, make it as difficult as possible for your opponent to dislodge your assets.

    There would be millions of shipping crates in train and ship depots in Russia... when the INF treaty is torn up over US violations with tomahawk missile tubes in eastern europe then 5,000km range missiles can be used.

    Note the INF treaty covers missiles with ranges of 500km to 5,500km, so a 6,000km range cruise missile is perfectly legal...



    _________________
    “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

    AlfaT8
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1149
    Points : 1162
    Join date : 2013-02-01

    Re: Russian Navy: Status & News #3

    Post  AlfaT8 on Thu Nov 17, 2016 9:18 am

    GarryB wrote:
    Yes, yes, i am aware of the container option, but at the end of the day they're still limited to max 500km range and airdropping them from point A to point B will also take time.

    No.

    A single missile container that can be released from a cargo aircraft in flight would be an airlaunched weapon and therefore not subject to the INF treaty which limits ground launched weapons.

    Put it on the back of a small river boat with an angle launch tube and rocket booster and again it is not land launched and therefore also not subject to the INF treaty so it can have a range of anything you like... 5,000km or more if you want...

    I honestly wonder about that, since it's not a dedicated sea based platform, but the INF doesn't say it needs to be a dedicated sea based, at least from what i can make out from that blob of text.

    GarryB wrote:
    Ok, let's go with that then since Midget subs are normally shoot and scoot.

    The hell, i was aware of the Kalina/Lada, but i wasn't aware Kilo's could use Kalibers from submerged positions, are these the 877s or the new 636.3??
    If it's the latter, then you only have 6 of them each carrying 10 Kaliber, it's good, but i prefer having more assets in the water.

    Why waste time putting cruise missiles in SSKs... they have their own job to do... not waste their time attacking land targets. A single corvette can have 8 missiles ready to fire and are cheaper and easier to make than subs and can be used for other roles as well.

    Why not, considering Russia's lack of major surface vessels it makes sense to put cruise missiles in everything possible (containers for example).
    And there lies the question, is a corvette really cheaper then a midget sub, if so than there's still the aspect of a midget sub being much more difficult to search&destroy.

    GarryB wrote:
    The issue with containers is that they're not dedicated sea based assets so they would still be considered ground based regardless, ergo have a max 500km range (supposedly), also don't expect NATO to hold back just because there on civilian vessels.
    Dispersion is needed if you want to maximize to survival of your offensive assets, make it as difficult as possible for your opponent to dislodge your assets.

    There would be millions of shipping crates in train and ship depots in Russia... when the INF treaty is torn up over US violations with tomahawk missile tubes in eastern europe then 5,000km range missiles can be used.

    Note the INF treaty covers missiles with ranges of 500km to 5,500km, so a 6,000km range cruise missile is perfectly legal...

    True, which is good, although i wonder how many container have been procured?
    If that happens than i have nothing to worry about, no sane adversary would dare launch an attack, unless they went full retard.
    No doubt, hell if that happens it may even force the western dogs to sign a new treaty.

    PapaDragon
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3659
    Points : 3771
    Join date : 2015-04-26
    Location : Fort Evil, Serbia

    Re: Russian Navy: Status & News #3

    Post  PapaDragon on Thu Nov 17, 2016 5:40 pm


    Pella took over More shipyard in Crimea

    http://bmpd.livejournal.com/2260331.html

    hoom
    Senior Sergeant
    Senior Sergeant

    Posts : 226
    Points : 228
    Join date : 2016-05-06

    Re: Russian Navy: Status & News #3

    Post  hoom on Thu Nov 17, 2016 8:42 pm

    I think its just a formalisation of the situation.
    Pella has already been heavily involved in getting that shipyard up & running esp with the 22800 build, now has an official lease on it.

    eehnie
    Lieutenant
    Lieutenant

    Posts : 558
    Points : 583
    Join date : 2015-05-13

    Re: Russian Navy: Status & News #3

    Post  eehnie on Thu Nov 17, 2016 8:55 pm


    Some of you have been following closely the ships deployed in Syria.

    Can we have a list of the Russian ships currently in Syria including the ships there before the deployment and the ships coming in the following days?

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15439
    Points : 16146
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian Navy: Status & News #3

    Post  GarryB on Fri Nov 18, 2016 4:38 am

    I honestly wonder about that, since it's not a dedicated sea based platform, but the INF doesn't say it needs to be a dedicated sea based, at least from what i can make out from that blob of text.

    The INF treaty defines banned systems as ballistic or cruise missiles launched from ground based launchers... it does not include Mk-41 vertical launch systems the US Navy uses when they are mounted on ships, but when mounted on a land base in eastern europe such launchers are not only able to launch SAMs but Tomahawk cruise missiles so they represent a violation of the INF treaty.

    I don't see the US dismantling those launchers meaning Russia would be free to build land based or truck based UKSK launchers where they want on the land too... making the INF treaty not worth the paper it is printed on.

    Why not, considering Russia's lack of major surface vessels it makes sense to put cruise missiles in everything possible (containers for example).

    Because most of their new vessels will carry plenty of launch tubes... why waste space on conventional subs... of course UKSK tubes in a conventional sub are useful because they can carry anti ship and anti sub missiles as well as land attack cruise missiles.

    They could build a cruise missile carrier boat that is just hundreds of UKSK tubes for land attack roles in conventional conflicts. In other types of conflict they could have perhaps S-500s fitted in the large tubes of the UKSK launchers, and also perhaps develop UAVS that can be launched from such tubes...

    And there lies the question, is a corvette really cheaper then a midget sub, if so than there's still the aspect of a midget sub being much more difficult to search&destroy.

    A sub is a sneak attack weapon... a corvette is a multi purpose vessel with a much wider range of overt uses. They are different enough for both to be useful.

    True, which is good, although i wonder how many container have been procured?
    If that happens than i have nothing to worry about, no sane adversary would dare launch an attack, unless they went full retard.
    No doubt, hell if that happens it may even force the western dogs to sign a new treaty.

    The INF treaty is useful in that it limits US weapons in europe and eliminates an entire class of weapon from the ground in europe.

    When it was signed the SS-20 was a potent powerful weapon that was very destabilising... weapons in Turkey also meant there might be 2-5 minutes between launch and a direct attack on Moscow... that is a real hair trigger... 2 minutes to decide if it is a mistake or WWIII... no real time to talk to anyone... just destroy the world or not.

    Today however the radar coverage of Russia and europe is much much better and the air defence capabilities are also much better so most missiles fired could be intercepted...

    It remains a limit on US missiles in europe so Russia does not withdraw, but when tomahawk launch tubes are being built as part of an ABM system in europe then they will have to say enough if enough and withdraw... which would allow development of the IRBM range of weapons which are cheaper and very effective in theatre conflicts like europe, the ME and Asia.

    Of course in the near future there will be hypersonic cruise missiles on the table and you can bet they wont have super long range, but will have a range greater than 500km... they will be like Ballistic missiles in speed, but with the manouver capability of an aircraft they will be much harder to intercept than a BM.. . I suspect they will become the new IRBMs and kill the INF treaty for good.


    _________________
    “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

    JohninMK
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3360
    Points : 3403
    Join date : 2015-06-16
    Location : England

    Re: Russian Navy: Status & News #3

    Post  JohninMK on Sat Nov 19, 2016 6:48 am

    Not sure where this goes.

    MOSCOW (Sputnik) — The combat readiness of two Utes coastal silo-based missile systems in Crimea was restored and confirmed by successful launches of the P-35 cruise missiles, a source the Crimean in law enforcement agencies told RIA Novosti.

    "It was agreed to set on duty the Utes coastal silo-based missile systems, located in Crimea. To confirm the operational readiness of the systems… the launches of P-35 cruise missiles were performed, and they were successful," the source said on Friday. According to the source, there are currently two missile systems of the kind at the disposal of the Russian Black Sea fleet, each of them has two missile launch containers. The Utes missile systems with P-35 (NATO reporting name SS-N-3a Shaddock) cruise missiles are capable of hitting targets at a distance of 300 kilometers (186 miles) The P-35s are equipped with 560-kilos high-explosive warheads, and the flight speed of the missiles exceeds 2,000 kilometers per hour.

    Read more: https://sputniknews.com/russia/201611191047609773-russia-utes-crimea-missiles-ready/

    JohninMK
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3360
    Points : 3403
    Join date : 2015-06-16
    Location : England

    Re: Russian Navy: Status & News #3

    Post  JohninMK on Sat Nov 19, 2016 11:18 am

    Aldin Abazović ‏@Ald_Aba 2h2 hours ago

    "Yantar" Russian Research Vessel now at Bandar Abbas, #Iran

    AlfaT8
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1149
    Points : 1162
    Join date : 2013-02-01

    Re: Russian Navy: Status & News #3

    Post  AlfaT8 on Sun Nov 20, 2016 10:24 pm

    GarryB wrote:
    I honestly wonder about that, since it's not a dedicated sea based platform, but the INF doesn't say it needs to be a dedicated sea based, at least from what i can make out from that blob of text.

    The INF treaty defines banned systems as ballistic or cruise missiles launched from ground based launchers... it does not include Mk-41 vertical launch systems the US Navy uses when they are mounted on ships, but when mounted on a land base in eastern europe such launchers are not only able to launch SAMs but Tomahawk cruise missiles so they represent a violation of the INF treaty.

    I don't see the US dismantling those launchers meaning Russia would be free to build land based or truck based UKSK launchers where they want on the land too... making the INF treaty not worth the paper it is printed on.

    True, true, but the INF is still somewhat standing, for how long who knows, this all feels like mission creep kinda thing happening, slowly becoming irrelevant.

    GarryB wrote:
    Why not, considering Russia's lack of major surface vessels it makes sense to put cruise missiles in everything possible (containers for example).

    Because most of their new vessels will carry plenty of launch tubes... why waste space on conventional subs... of course UKSK tubes in a conventional sub are useful because they can carry anti ship and anti sub missiles as well as land attack cruise missiles.

    They could build a cruise missile carrier boat that is just hundreds of UKSK tubes for land attack roles in conventional conflicts. In other types of conflict they could have perhaps S-500s fitted in the large tubes of the UKSK launchers, and also perhaps develop UAVS that can be launched from such tubes...

    Meh, i feel like they could use more.
    Because when your opponent has so many more vessels than you, you're gonna have to make sure whatever you have can engage whatever target they can, be it on land or sea.
    I don't think the one they're using in subs is called UKSK, but yea, also i am not strictly recommending the VL method, launching them like the Kilo's is also good.

    Yeaa....considering Russia's current pace of shipbuilding, i wouldn't hold my breath, it'll be a while before they can replace the Slava cruisers, although i can see a Borey cruise missile sub being possible, like what the U.S did with some Ohio's, although the Kalina's gonna arrive soon anyway.
    Nah, i don't see Russia unifying there cruise missile and AD missiles launcher together anytime soon.


    GarryB wrote:
    And there lies the question, is a corvette really cheaper then a midget sub, if so than there's still the aspect of a midget sub being much more difficult to search&destroy.

    A sub is a sneak attack weapon... a corvette is a multi purpose vessel with a much wider range of overt uses. They are different enough for both to be useful.

    True, and i would like to see some of these subs be made.


    GarryB wrote:
    True, which is good, although i wonder how many container have been procured?
    If that happens than i have nothing to worry about, no sane adversary would dare launch an attack, unless they went full retard.
    No doubt, hell if that happens it may even force the western dogs to sign a new treaty.

    The INF treaty is useful in that it limits US weapons in europe and eliminates an entire class of weapon from the ground in europe.

    When it was signed the SS-20 was a potent powerful weapon that was very destabilising... weapons in Turkey also meant there might be 2-5 minutes between launch and a direct attack on Moscow... that is a real hair trigger... 2 minutes to decide if it is a mistake or WWIII... no real time to talk to anyone... just destroy the world or not.

    Today however the radar coverage of Russia and europe is much much better and the air defence capabilities are also much better so most missiles fired could be intercepted...

    It remains a limit on US missiles in europe so Russia does not withdraw, but when tomahawk launch tubes are being built as part of an ABM system in europe then they will have to say enough if enough and withdraw... which would allow development of the IRBM range of weapons which are cheaper and very effective in theatre conflicts like europe, the ME and Asia.

    Of course in the near future there will be hypersonic cruise missiles on the table and you can bet they wont have super long range, but will have a range greater than 500km... they will be like Ballistic missiles in speed, but with the manouver capability of an aircraft they will be much harder to intercept than a BM.. . I suspect they will become the new IRBMs and kill the INF treaty for good.

    If or when the INF treaty falls, it will not be Russia to withdraw from it first, although weakened, it is still to some extent preventing the major build up of IRBMs near Russia's border, since there are only 2 " rogue states" with very limited numbers of (imaginary) missiles, the ABM is gonna be limited at least to that extent.
    Right now the U.S is using some BS pretext and Russia is just being vague about it's platforms capabilities, so some parity is being maintained.

    eehnie
    Lieutenant
    Lieutenant

    Posts : 558
    Points : 583
    Join date : 2015-05-13

    Re: Russian Navy: Status & News #3

    Post  eehnie on Mon Nov 21, 2016 3:05 am

    franco wrote:Russian Navy War Ship Construction Update

    Those constructed, under construction, ordered or announced plans to order. Does not include ships still under planning development.

    Submarines:

    06363 - 3100t conventional submarine - 12
    677 - 2100t conventional submarine - 3
    885 - 11800t nuclear attack submarine - 7
    955 - 13000t nuclear ballistic missile submarine - 8

    Frigate types:

    11356 - 3800t frigate - 6
    22350 - 4500t frigate - 6
    23550 - 6800t Arctic Patrol Ship - 2
    20380 - 2100t Corvette - 10
    20385 - 2300t Corvette - 2
    22160 - 1700t Patrol Ship - 6

    Littoral types:

    21630 - 500t - Gun Boat - 3
    12418 - 500t - Missile Boat - 2
    21631 - 950t - Missile Ship - 12
    22800 - 800t - Missile Ship - 19

    Patrol types:

    21980 - 138t - Patrol Boat - 22
    03160 - 23t - Fast Patrol Boat - 8
    BK-16 - 20t - Fast Patrol Boat - 2

    Minesweepers:

    12700 - 620t - Coastal Minesweeper - 8

    Amphibious Warfare:

    11711 - 6000t - Landing Ship - 2
    11770 - 100t - Fast Landing Craft - 12
    21820 - 280t - Landing Craft - 11

    The BK-16 is refered to the project 02510 ships? Here are classified as Landing Craft (Amphibious Warfare):

    http://russianships.info/eng/warships/project_02510.htm

    About the Project 23550, I think it would need some upgrade in its armament to be a true frigate (and not an auxiliary ship). It would need at least some Air Defense. Some modern surface-air missile above man portable technologies.

    With their low level armament (as it has been reported) I think the Project 23550, the Project 03160 and the Project 21980 would be more in the level of armament of the Auxiliary Ships and the Coast Guard. Note that the Project 23550 seems to carry two 03160 boats.


    Last edited by eehnie on Tue Nov 22, 2016 1:17 am; edited 1 time in total

    Sponsored content

    Re: Russian Navy: Status & News #3

    Post  Sponsored content Today at 6:15 pm


      Current date/time is Fri Dec 02, 2016 6:15 pm