Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Russian Navy: Status & News #3

    Share

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

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

    Re: Russian Navy: Status & News #3

    Post  GarryB on Wed Nov 30, 2016 2:52 am

    What is really sad is the losers who think Russia would be better off with the US Navy...

    The US navy is a tool to impose US imperialism on small countries... its use against Russia would lead to the annihilation of the west and the east... it is simply not going to happen.

    Bleating about 4000 mile range subsonic anti ship missiles is amusing when by 2020 the Russians will be introducing the Zircon hypersonic missile in those UKSK launch tubes they are putting on all their new ships... and in shipping crates...

    Ohh, but America has 63 ABs... big fkin deal what are even half of them doing?

    Reserve for a war you can't win and for all other conflict not that much use...

    America could have free education and healthcare for all its citizens... or it can have a bloated MIC and military to threaten and bully the world... clearly made the right choice there... because poor people are lazy and don't need to be kept healthy right...

    One Kashtan-M mount could engage 4 targets simultaneously including three with missiles and one with guns... Pantsir will likely do rather better... and soon Morfei with fire and forget missiles will be able to take on dozens of targets... at once.


    _________________
    “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

    KiloGolf
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1189
    Points : 1207
    Join date : 2015-09-01
    Location : Macedonia, Hellas

    Re: Russian Navy: Status & News #3

    Post  KiloGolf on Wed Nov 30, 2016 3:08 am

    GarryB wrote:What is really sad is the losers who think Russia would be better off with the US Navy...

    The US navy is a tool to impose US imperialism on small countries... its use against Russia would lead to the annihilation of the west and the east... it is simply not going to happen.

    Bleating about 4000 mile range subsonic anti ship missiles is amusing when by 2020 the Russians will be introducing the Zircon hypersonic missile in those UKSK launch tubes they are putting on all their new ships... and in shipping crates...

    Ohh, but America has 63 ABs... big fkin deal what are even half of them doing?

    Reserve for a war you can't win and for all other conflict not that much use...

    America could have free education and healthcare for all its citizens... or it can have a bloated MIC and military to threaten and bully the world... clearly made the right choice there... because poor people are lazy and don't need to be kept healthy right...

    One Kashtan-M mount could engage 4 targets simultaneously including three with missiles and one with guns... Pantsir will likely do rather better... and soon Morfei with fire and forget missiles will be able to take on dozens of targets... at once.

    All 63 ABs are active, not reserve.
    I am getting wunderwaffe vibes, Kashtan-M, supersonic missiles, Pansir... but the engines are German or Ukrainian, in 2016. Of course no significant number of ships exist to carry them. In short those that belittle their opponent and have weak cards to begin with, should be very humble indeed.

    Militarov
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 4795
    Points : 4842
    Join date : 2015-09-02
    Location : Serbia

    Re: Russian Navy: Status & News #3

    Post  Militarov on Wed Nov 30, 2016 4:03 am

    Mindstorm wrote:
    KiloGolf wrote:Easy tiger. AB is heavy as fcuk for a reason, it packs a massive punch. 96 VLS cells and much more.


    It pack a massive punch, sure, but surely NOT against enemy ship.

    What missile do you think are contained in those VLS ?

    The US Naval doctrine is truly "circular" for what concern dealing with enemy surface combatants, both in the offensive and in the defensive operations : Aircraft Carrier's Air Wing.
    At the end of day anything rotate forcibly around that element ; in facts the offensive AShM component of practically all of theirs surface ships is totally surclassed under any cardinal parameter by opponents corresponding systems.

    This very heavy reliance and dependence on air wing for naval operations (a legacy of WWII experience) is potentially the greatest liability of US Navy, anyhow the most powerful Navy at world, that has never found a true alternative -above all under a strict technological point of view - in the US post-war planning.        

    Well they also have good amount of attack submarines and you shouldnt discard Tomahawk and Harpoon like that, those are capable weapons.

    hoom
    Senior Sergeant
    Senior Sergeant

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

    Re: Russian Navy: Status & News #3

    Post  hoom on Wed Nov 30, 2016 7:25 am

    ABs are a really impressive ship no question.
    With only 8* Harpoon is not that scary ship-ship at the moment so LRASM will be a very big ship-ship capability boost.
    Whatever their weaknesses the fact of their huge individual capability AND huge numbers means nothing is going to challenge the Burke force anytime soon.

    PtG & Nakhimov might be able to beat several ABs in a 1 vs many, the Slavas maybe 1v1, China & Russia may be able to beat single CV strike groups but nothing like the numbers that US can concentrate (even without including allies).
    But if it ever got to that kind of a fight we all gonna die anyway so lets all really hope it doesn't.


    Doesn't mean Russia shouldn't be upgrading/replacing old ships that need it or using what it has now to help defeat ISIS, Al Qaeda & associated Jihadis.

    Isos
    Master Sergeant
    Master Sergeant

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

    Re: Russian Navy: Status & News #3

    Post  Isos on Wed Nov 30, 2016 8:10 am

    US anti ship capabilities are the harpoons carried by Super-Hornets. It's far the best way to attack ships. They have longer range than anti-ship missiles alone as they have missile + Aircraft range. They can spot big cruiser or destroyers at 200km at least and lunch their missiles at the same range. They can destroy helicopters easily and reaload missiles easily too. Their isn't any anti air defence systeme that can threat them at these ranges and in the middle of the ocean they won't be attacked by an air force.

    It's just impossible for Russia to win a naval war far away from its Mainland against US navy. Close to the shores Russia can interceped the Hornets with is own Sukhoi. And that the strategy of Russia, they don't need much as their interest is to protect the borders, not to attack the US. They could lunch their long range missiles in an ocean battle but they won't be able to reload like you reload and F-18.

    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 Wed Nov 30, 2016 8:37 am


    You are going down the rabbit hole again guys. What you are talking about here are first 10 minutes of nuclear Armageddon.

    Yes USA has huge navy. They are also navy centric military. Geography dictates military doctrine. So navy is #1 on the priority list.

    As for Russian Navy, most important thing is that now they finally have series of decent flexible ship designs (Karakurt, Reskii, Gorshkov) that fit their needs.

    What they need to do now is build enough of them. But make no mistake, for Russia navy will always be #3 at best on priority list.

    AlfaT8
    Colonel
    Colonel

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

    Re: Russian Navy: Status & News #3

    Post  AlfaT8 on Wed Nov 30, 2016 4:36 pm

    I don't know, Gorshvok is good, but i feel that it should have more firepower preferably double the UKSKs it currently has, as for the Karakurt it's decent, but seems redundant since we already have Buyan and Steregushchiy, unless there's something i don't know, and i am guessing reskii is dreaski or project 20386, which is a ship i am kinda disappointed at since it looks like it can hold 2x8cell UKSKs, but instead uses 2x4cell Uran luanchers.

    PD, i think having competent shipyard that "can" build enough of em should be our primary concern right now, if we don't have that, than no matter how amazing the ship designs are, we'll hardly see them come to fruition.

    Since we're on this topic, i feel that although the Russian navy has no intention of matching the U.S navy ship per ship, they should at least make sure to pack as much firepower to even the smallest ship.
    The mainstay of the U.S navy are the Arleigh Burkes and the Ticonderoga-class, there  are 62 ABs each with around 96 missiles cells and there are 22 Tc's each with around 122 missile cells, there is no two ways around this.
    IMO, i would recommend that for the future Russian fleet, Corvettes should have a minimal of 16 UKSKs (2x8cells), Frigates should have a minimal of 32 UKSKs, Destroyers a minimal of 64 UKSKs and Cruisers and/or B-cruisers should have a minimal of 128 UKSKs, although i know the U.S puts AA missiles in there VLS as well, with the number of ships they have they can have those dedicated to AD and those dedicated for anti-ship, Russia doesn't have that luxury so every ship must be well armed.

    What do you guys think, ....to ambitious?

    KiloGolf
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1189
    Points : 1207
    Join date : 2015-09-01
    Location : Macedonia, Hellas

    Re: Russian Navy: Status & News #3

    Post  KiloGolf on Wed Nov 30, 2016 5:30 pm

    Isos wrote:US anti ship capabilities are the harpoons carried by Super-Hornets. It's far the best way to attack ships. They have longer range than anti-ship missiles alone as they have missile + Aircraft range. They can spot big cruiser or destroyers at 200km at least and lunch their missiles at the same range. They can destroy helicopters easily and reaload missiles easily too. Their isn't any anti air defence systeme that can threat them at these ranges and in the middle of the ocean they won't be attacked by an air force.

    It's just impossible for Russia to win a naval war far away from its Mainland against US navy. Close to the shores Russia can interceped the Hornets with is own Sukhoi. And that the strategy of Russia, they don't need much as their interest is to protect the borders, not to attack the US. They could lunch their long range missiles in an ocean battle but they won't be able to reload like you reload and F-18.

    I very much agree here. The US doctrine spreads the risk much better, be it in open waters or near their opponent's waters. The Hornet capability is very much real and enhanced with the upcoming AGM-158C, with over 350 km effective range. Also B-1B bombers can come out and play with this one and the weapon is designed to fit Mk 41 VLS, although not fielded yet.

    If one combines this with AEW&C assets and data fusion from other flying assets (e.g. MH-60R), well shows how the US side is being smarter by spreading the risk, keeping all the big assets (destroyers and cruisers) well out of harms way. If such ASM strikes are combined with saturation attacks by Tomahawks and even SM-6s, then there's a distinct advantage that no last-moment CIWS or naval SHORADS can overcome.

    So it's not about wonder-weapons, e.g. marvelous supersonic one-time shooters, as the US did not invest in them. It's about playing the long game, playing to win. Brown water corvettes or frigates (the core of the Russian Navy right now and for the next decade) have zero chances in such threat environment, even near home waters. The inherent lack of numbers, launch tubes and reload capability simply lets them down.


    KiloGolf
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1189
    Points : 1207
    Join date : 2015-09-01
    Location : Macedonia, Hellas

    Re: Russian Navy: Status & News #3

    Post  KiloGolf on Wed Nov 30, 2016 5:50 pm

    AlfaT8 wrote:I don't know, Gorshvok is good, but i feel that it should have more firepower preferably double the UKSKs it currently has

    Take it this way, about the AG, it's half the ship an AB is and thus has half the number of VLS cells. It's a heavy frigate really and for its size is alright. Expecting to pack more punch is unrealistic. It's small and will never match the capabilities of the big boys.

    AlfaT8 wrote: they should at least make sure to pack as much firepower to even the smallest ship.
    The mainstay of the U.S navy are the Arleigh Burkes and the Ticonderoga-class, there  are 62 ABs each with around 96 missiles cells and there are 22 Tc's each with around 122 missile cells, there is no two ways around this.

    As I said, it really is impossible to match the firepower of what is essentially is a 10,000 ton cruiser to a glorified corvette or frigate.

    AlfaT8 wrote:IMO, i would recommend that for the future Russian fleet, Corvettes should have a minimal of 16 UKSKs (2x8cells), Frigates should have a minimal of 32 UKSKs, Destroyers a minimal of 64 UKSKs and Cruisers and/or B-cruisers should have a minimal of 128 UKSKs, although i know the U.S puts AA missiles in there VLS as well, with the number of ships they have they can have those dedicated to AD and those dedicated for anti-ship, Russia doesn't have that luxury so every ship must be well armed.

    What do you guys think, ....to ambitious?

    No, it's not ambitious to seek for the best solutions. I agree. For me more realistic would be for Russia to figure out how to build large combat ships -again-. Settle on a heavy frigate/light destroyer, building on the AG experience, in the 4,000 to 6,000 ton range (sure 64 VLS sounds alright) and start ship-building like there's no tomorrow. I.e. get the numbers in (plan say over 30 vessels in 2 decades), keep people busy, projects running and have a proper Navy as a result.

    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 Wed Nov 30, 2016 6:15 pm

    AlfaT8 wrote:I don't know, Gorshvok is good, but i feel that it should have more firepower preferably double the UKSKs it currently has, as for the Karakurt it's decent, but seems redundant since we already have Buyan and Steregushchiy, unless there's something i don't know, and i am guessing reskii is dreaski or project 20386, which is a ship i am kinda disappointed at since it looks like it can hold 2x8cell UKSKs, but instead uses 2x4cell Uran luanchers.

    ...................

    Gorshkov is excellent multirole platform. 16 VLS is OK but once you load Zirkon missiles into down the road it becomes something else entirely. And it is a good platform for further modifications without designing new ships from scratch.

    Karakurt is not redundant, it's improved Buyan (stealth, endurance, seaworthiness). You can't use modified river design forever. If used as dedicated land attack platform it frees up frigates for anti-ship/sub work even further.

    20386 or Drskii (THX for correction) is good corvette platform. Previous ones packed a punch, yes, but they were also overstuffed. There are size limitations that is all. This is good, balanced design.  

    Keep making these and RU Navy should be in a good place soon. When Lider class enters equation later on it will be even better. Current designs maintain navy's capabilities. Lider expands them.

    Singular_Transform
    Private
    Private

    Posts : 39
    Points : 41
    Join date : 2016-11-13

    Re: Russian Navy: Status & News #3

    Post  Singular_Transform on Wed Nov 30, 2016 6:31 pm

    KiloGolf wrote:The US doctrine spreads the risk much better, be it in open waters or near their opponent's waters.


    The target of every military is that.

    It is the reason why China making carriers, and this will be the reason why Russia making long range nuclear torpedos, and stealth planes with aircraft carriers.


    As soon as any other country has attack capability that can reach US mainland USA will have to rebalance the military outlay, cutting back the size of navy, or going down on the road of the CCCP.


    At least this is the plan of russia/china/india : )

    Singular_Transform
    Private
    Private

    Posts : 39
    Points : 41
    Join date : 2016-11-13

    Re: Russian Navy: Status & News #3

    Post  Singular_Transform on Wed Nov 30, 2016 6:37 pm

    KiloGolf wrote:
    kvs wrote:Gatling guns will work against this wunderwaffe.   It is clearly subsonic.

    Sure that works on a usual day. Although saturation attack of say.. 50-60 of them by one or a handful of Burke's will present a problem.
    Like major problem. Ergo gets the job done fine and keeps the launching platforms well away from problems. 1000 nm is just unparalleled stuff.

    If you think that 50-60 subsonic tomahawk can overwhelm a destroyer's defence, then how many supersonic missile needed to overwhelm similar defence?


    Additional, the AB class main job is to protect the carriers/ambitious ships. not so many left for other tasks.


    The big attack capability require a lot of other assets.

    AlfaT8
    Colonel
    Colonel

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

    Re: Russian Navy: Status & News #3

    Post  AlfaT8 on Wed Nov 30, 2016 7:03 pm

    KiloGolf wrote:
    AlfaT8 wrote:I don't know, Gorshvok is good, but i feel that it should have more firepower preferably double the UKSKs it currently has

    Take it this way, about the AG, it's half the ship an AB is and thus has half the number of VLS cells. It's a heavy frigate really and for its size is alright. Expecting to pack more punch is unrealistic. It's small and will never match the capabilities of the big boys.

    It's not about being a match, it's about having at least half the firepower of a destroyer, shouldn't be to much to ask for in an improved Gorshvok-M.

    KiloGolf wrote:
    AlfaT8 wrote: they should at least make sure to pack as much firepower to even the smallest ship.
    The mainstay of the U.S navy are the Arleigh Burkes and the Ticonderoga-class, there  are 62 ABs each with around 96 missiles cells and there are 22 Tc's each with around 122 missile cells, there is no two ways around this.

    As I said, it really is impossible to match the firepower of what is essentially is a 10,000 ton cruiser to a glorified corvette or frigate.

    Maybe, but it doesn't mean you shouldn't give it your all.

    KiloGolf wrote:
    AlfaT8 wrote:IMO, i would recommend that for the future Russian fleet, Corvettes should have a minimal of 16 UKSKs (2x8cells), Frigates should have a minimal of 32 UKSKs, Destroyers a minimal of 64 UKSKs and Cruisers and/or B-cruisers should have a minimal of 128 UKSKs, although i know the U.S puts AA missiles in there VLS as well, with the number of ships they have they can have those dedicated to AD and those dedicated for anti-ship, Russia doesn't have that luxury so every ship must be well armed.

    What do you guys think, ....to ambitious?

    No, it's not ambitious to seek for the best solutions. I agree. For me more realistic would be for Russia to figure out how to build large combat ships -again-. Settle on a heavy frigate/light destroyer, building on the AG experience, in the 4,000 to 6,000 ton range (sure 64 VLS sounds alright) and start ship-building like there's no tomorrow. I.e. get the numbers in (plan say over 30 vessels in 2 decades), keep people busy, projects running and have a proper Navy as a result.

    I am not sure whether you're being sarcastic, but yea something like that.
    Also whats AG??...

    AlfaT8
    Colonel
    Colonel

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

    Re: Russian Navy: Status & News #3

    Post  AlfaT8 on Wed Nov 30, 2016 7:19 pm

    PapaDragon wrote:
    AlfaT8 wrote:I don't know, Gorshvok is good, but i feel that it should have more firepower preferably double the UKSKs it currently has, as for the Karakurt it's decent, but seems redundant since we already have Buyan and Steregushchiy, unless there's something i don't know, and i am guessing reskii is dreaski or project 20386, which is a ship i am kinda disappointed at since it looks like it can hold 2x8cell UKSKs, but instead uses 2x4cell Uran luanchers.

    ...................

    Gorshkov is excellent multirole platform. 16 VLS is OK but once you load Zirkon missiles into down the road it becomes something else entirely. And it is a good platform for further modifications without designing new ships from scratch.

    Karakurt is not redundant, it's improved Buyan (stealth, endurance, seaworthiness). You can't use modified river design forever. If used as dedicated land attack platform it frees up frigates for anti-ship/sub work even further.

    20386 or Drskii (THX for correction) is good corvette platform. Previous ones packed a punch, yes, but they were also overstuffed. There are size limitations that is all. This is good, balanced design.  

    Keep making these and RU Navy should be in a good place soon. When Lider class enters equation later on it will be even better. Current designs maintain navy's capabilities. Lider expands them.

    Not saying Gorshvok is bad, just saying it could use more teeth considering what it'll be up against, Zircon or not.

    Are you sure?.... i remember the Buyan having no problems when it went from the med to the Baltic or Northern base.
    Wouldn't it be the same if you just made more of what already there?

    I also like the new design, although like i said it's lacking some teeth.

    They have to be able to make them first, i hope to god Amur isn't put in charge of the Lider.
    Have they been able to classify the Lider yet, is it a Destroyer or a B-cruiser??

    miketheterrible
    Junior Sergeant
    Junior Sergeant

    Posts : 126
    Points : 128
    Join date : 2016-11-06

    Re: Russian Navy: Status & News #3

    Post  miketheterrible on Wed Nov 30, 2016 7:31 pm

    Up against its own missile? Why would it be up against its own missile? I don't think you thought through your post very well.

    As a reminder to others - the bigger it is, the harder it falls.

    In other words, these big ships may have a lot but all it takes is 1 good hit and its disabled, and all of its arsenal. Since it is going to be busy trying to defend itself or its aircraft carrier groups, Russia's ships are aimed directly to striking it and land targets. So there is an operational difference. A few zircon missiles will have no problem and then goodbye ship. It may be able to launch some of its missiles at Russian ships and if the subsonic missiles reach their target successfully, then it also sinks. But the biggest loss would be the AB. Regardless what the NATO wankers think.

    I am looking forward to Zircon entering service. Already Tu-22M launched one recently as a test.

    KiloGolf
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1189
    Points : 1207
    Join date : 2015-09-01
    Location : Macedonia, Hellas

    Re: Russian Navy: Status & News #3

    Post  KiloGolf on Wed Nov 30, 2016 7:59 pm

    AlfaT8 wrote:I am not sure whether you're being sarcastic, but yea something like that.
    Also whats AG??...

    Once maturing a given destroyer project it's not unrealistic to ramp up production of up to 30 spread in 2 decades. I'd take that deal.

    PS. AG = Admiral Gorshkov, sorry lol1

    miketheterrible wrote:Up against its own missile?  Why would it be up against its own missile?  I don't think you thought through your post very well.

    As a reminder to others - the bigger it is, the harder it falls.

    In other words, these big ships may have a lot but all it takes is 1 good hit and its disabled, and all of its arsenal.  Since it is going to be busy trying to defend itself or its aircraft carrier groups, Russia's ships are aimed directly to striking it and land targets.  So there is an operational difference.  A few zircon missiles will have no problem and then goodbye ship.  It may be able to launch some of its missiles at Russian ships and if the subsonic missiles reach their target successfully, then it also sinks.  But the biggest loss would be the AB.  Regardless what the NATO wankers think.

    I am looking forward to Zircon entering service.  Already Tu-22M launched one recently as a test.

    When you have 63 vessels like that, operational, loosing a few is not a problem. Say you deploy a squadron of 6-8, loose 1-2 and you still complete the mission with what's left. In fact those big fckers can absorb hits quite well. Add a carrier group in the mix, E-2D, air-launched AGM-158C and so on. And there's a clear winner right there.

    The US Navy has reached a lever of maturity and sophistication, that coupled with sheer numbers, makes it quite untouchable. Yes it can take losses but they will still come out on top. This is what the whole 90s and 00s head-start did after all. China is the only serious contender so far, strictly near their waters of course. Russia on the other hand, well.. lets just say that their ports and sea lanes are quite vulnerable to good ol' air sea warfare.


    Last edited by KiloGolf on Wed Nov 30, 2016 8:13 pm; edited 1 time in total

    miketheterrible
    Junior Sergeant
    Junior Sergeant

    Posts : 126
    Points : 128
    Join date : 2016-11-06

    Re: Russian Navy: Status & News #3

    Post  miketheterrible on Wed Nov 30, 2016 8:10 pm

    Man you are beyond help.

    You think the Russian vessels would operate alone as well? First you said 1 on 1 and then you go on to change that after you realized you sounded ridiculous.  Stick with the topic here.  Russian ships can take out more than 1 or 2 as you would think.  If a ship has 8 missiles, guaranteed they can hit far more if they just salvo launch as well.

    So get bent.  Suck off the American NATO group all you want.  The rest of us are not retarded.  A shame such people learned to even use a computer to post.  There is a reason why Russian MoD is aiming at making more smaller ships with the ability to hit hard and fast.  Supersonic and soon hypersonic.  I think they can make far more than 65 missiles for far cheaper + longer ranges as well (300+).

    Had to end up blocking you cause your filling of the threads with absolute garbage was eye watering.

    KiloGolf
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1189
    Points : 1207
    Join date : 2015-09-01
    Location : Macedonia, Hellas

    Re: Russian Navy: Status & News #3

    Post  KiloGolf on Wed Nov 30, 2016 8:18 pm

    miketheterrible wrote:Man you are beyond help.

    You think the Russian vessels would operate alone as well? First you said 1 on 1 and then you go on to change that after you realized you sounded ridiculous.  Stick with the topic here.  Russian ships can take out more than 1 or 2 as you would think.  If a ship has 8 missiles, guaranteed they can hit far more if they just salvo launch as well.

    So get bent.  Suck off the American NATO group all you want.  The rest of us are not retarded.  A shame such people learned to even use a computer to post.

    Define alone. There's not many Russian vessels to begin with. Given the sheer size of the world's (or Russia's) seas, yes those 3 cruisers, 10 or 20 destroyers and some few frigates are quite "alone". Also I'm not into 1 on 1 comparisons as this is beyond the point. You can get a Tarantul potentially wasting an AB. Hell as Yemen incident has shown it takes even less than that. My point (against those that dismiss the AB as a big fat target) address doctrine, deployed numbers and capability.

    The US Navy is on a whole different league here.

    miketheterrible
    Junior Sergeant
    Junior Sergeant

    Posts : 126
    Points : 128
    Join date : 2016-11-06

    Re: Russian Navy: Status & News #3

    Post  miketheterrible on Wed Nov 30, 2016 8:20 pm

    KiloGolf wrote:
    miketheterrible wrote:Man you are beyond help.

    You think the Russian vessels would operate alone as well? First you said 1 on 1 and then you go on to change that after you realized you sounded ridiculous.  Stick with the topic here.  Russian ships can take out more than 1 or 2 as you would think.  If a ship has 8 missiles, guaranteed they can hit far more if they just salvo launch as well.

    So get bent.  Suck off the American NATO group all you want.  The rest of us are not retarded.  A shame such people learned to even use a computer to post.

    Define alone. There's not many Russian vessels to begin with. Given the sheer size of the world's (or Russia's) seas, yes those 3 cruisers, 10 or 20 destroyers and some few frigates are quite "alone". Also I'm not into 1 on 1 comparisons as this is beyond the point. You can get a Tarantul potentially wasting an AB. Hell as Yemen incident has shown it takes even less than that. My point (against those that dismiss the AB as a big fat target) address doctrine, deployed numbers and capability.

    The US Navy is on a whole different league here.

    Get your facts straight.  First you said 1 on 1 and then after we pointed out how shit the antiship missiles are and not much of a threat and how a well placed shot from a single antiship missile could deal with it, then you changed to to battle groups.  First off, Russia has plenty of subs and other support ships.  Second, navy jets that can also launch anti ship missiles, land based antiship missiles, so on so fourth.

    The AB is a big fat monstrosity with a bunch of outdated weapons that fly shit ass slow compared to competition. Yeah, the salvo trick can work both ways. Harder for it when the anti ship missiles coming at it are supersonic or hypersonic.

    KiloGolf
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1189
    Points : 1207
    Join date : 2015-09-01
    Location : Macedonia, Hellas

    Re: Russian Navy: Status & News #3

    Post  KiloGolf on Wed Nov 30, 2016 8:29 pm

    miketheterrible wrote:Get your facts straight.  First you said 1 on 1

    No sorry. I stressed that there are over 60 ABs from the beginning.

    miketheterrible wrote:Second, navy jets that can also launch anti ship missiles, land based antiship missiles, so on so fourth.

    Only the AB friendlies have carrier-borne jets to begin with. I'd treat the Kuz as being disabled most of the time.

    miketheterrible wrote:The AB is a big fat monstrosity with a bunch of outdated weapons that fly shit ass slow compared to competition.  Yeah, the salvo trick can work both ways.  Harder for it when the anti ship missiles coming at it are supersonic or hypersonic.

    How can the salvo trick work both ways when one side has very few vessels to begin with?
    What happens after the salvo? You are contradicting yourself here.

    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 Wed Nov 30, 2016 9:56 pm

    AlfaT8 wrote:.......

    Not saying Gorshvok is bad, just saying it could use more teeth considering what it'll be up against, Zircon or not.

    Are you sure?.... i remember the Buyan having no problems when it went from the med to the Baltic or Northern base.
    Wouldn't it be the same if you just made more of what already there?

    I also like the new design, although like i said it's lacking some teeth.

    They have to be able to make them first, i hope to god Amur isn't put in charge of the Lider.
    Have they been able to classify the Lider yet, is it a Destroyer or a B-cruiser??

    What we need to keep in mind here is what are duties of Russian Navy and they come down to 2 things:

    1) Provide cover/decoy for nuclear subs

    2) Protect territorial waters/coast

    Everything else is irrelevant in overall scheme of things. Even current Syrian party is just one very rare exception to firmly established rule.

    So that being said:

    Gorshkov frigates have plenty of teeth for their size. 16 VLS cells are not that few when you remember that they also have full AA and anti-sub package. They are called multirole ships for a reason.

    It is important to remember that despite being called frigates, they are intended to replace all Soviet era destroyers ( Sovremeni, Udaloy, etc..) They were never intended to go after Arley Burk destroyers head to head. Their job, like their predecessor's, is to act as decoys so nuke subs could do their thing during nuclear exchange.

    They might expand them into something bigger down the road but they need to put dozen of them into service first.

    Drskii corvettes may seem underarmed but that is result of their intended role which is anti-sub and patrol duties. Those Uran launchers are there for self defence.

    Steregushi class have same amount of firepower but those ships have reached end of their upgrade potential. High price is also big problem, something that probably factored into Drskii design.

    Steregushi were/are good ships but they simply fell victim to financial disaster of the 90's that is all. Time and technology moved on. That being said, there is still possibility that Gremashi class will be still produced for North Fleet since they seem to have specific requirements but that is still up in the air.

    Buyans have same issue as Steregushi corvettes: nearing the end of upgrade potential. They started as river artillery boats. They evolved into masterpiece but this is as good as it gets.

    They can sail from Med to Baltic. They can probably cross the Atlantic easy but it would be pain in the ass for the crews and it would be pointless unnecessary risk. Think of them as proof of concept. Concept works so now they should build full package and that is Karakurt.

    These three classes ensure implementation of Russian Naval doctrine. If you want to go head to head with Burks then that is where Lider destroyers will be coming into play although I doubt that it would be their intended role.

    OminousSpudd
    Major
    Major

    Posts : 803
    Points : 822
    Join date : 2015-01-02
    Age : 21
    Location : Nelson, New Zealand

    Re: Russian Navy: Status & News #3

    Post  OminousSpudd on Wed Nov 30, 2016 11:16 pm

    A few Leader-class, mixed with a good sprinkling of Gorshkovs will be extremely potent. Top that off with sensor fusion allowing smaller "glorified" corvettes to utilise the firepower of the big boys, not just any firepower, but hypersonic weaponry that the US at current and in the forseeable future will not have a reliable counter to... As well as Su-34s because Russia would not engage outside of their own territorial waters... I know what I'd put my money on, even if the Russian fleet is by then still only half the size of the US. The reality is that Zircon and Onyx are not wunderwaffes in any sense of the term, but rather potent and so far untouchable and in the case of Onyx, already in service.  

    Also, Russia is far more adept at cold climate warfare, which applies to naval operations as well, they're not just a "brown water" navy...

    RTN
    Sergeant
    Sergeant

    Posts : 185
    Points : 170
    Join date : 2014-03-24
    Location : Fairfield , CT

    Re: Russian Navy: Status & News #3

    Post  RTN Yesterday at 5:33 am

    Mindstorm wrote:

    This very heavy reliance and dependence on air wing for naval operations (a legacy of WWII experience) is potentially the greatest liability of US Navy

    Primarily for airborne EW warfare. I can't think of any other Navy that has better airborne EW capabilities compared to the US Navy

    Mindstorm wrote:anyhow the most powerful Navy at world, that has never found a true alternative -above all under a strict technological point of view - in the US post-war planning.        

    That's not true. US Navy's cruise missiles need not have to be guided by ship borne radars because they navigate through pre-determined waypoints & have their own terminal seeker.

    Project Canada
    Lieutenant
    Lieutenant

    Posts : 528
    Points : 537
    Join date : 2015-07-19
    Age : 28
    Location : Canada

    Re: Russian Navy: Status & News #3

    Post  Project Canada Yesterday at 7:12 am




    Issue in Russian gas turbines for the Ukrainian Navy, instead will start in 2017

    Serial production of gas turbine units (GTU) for the ships of the Russian Navy in return GTU Ukrainian production will be launched in Rybinsk by the end of 2017, reports "Interfax". This was stated by a member of the board of the Military-Industrial Commission, Vladimir Pospelov.

    Currently, the factory is preparing for serial production within the import substitution Ukrainian products due to rupture of the military-technical cooperation between Moscow and Kiev.
    "We have already launched a contract for the manufacture and supply of power generating units in the interest of the Navy. Therefore, the end of 2017 - beginning of serial production of power generating units, "- said Pospelov.

    In October 2016, an informed source told "Lente.ru" the completion of the test benches for ship gas-turbine power plants in the Rybinsk NPO "Saturn". Stands are a necessary part of the process of a full cycle of production of such plants.

    In May 2016, Vice-president of military shipbuilding United Shipbuilding Corporation, Igor Ponomarev said "Lente.ru", the prototype of the Russian gas-turbine plant for the future frigates of Project 22350 will be put to the test in 2017, and can be delivered at the end of this year and the first production facility for equipment under construction


    KiloGolf
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1189
    Points : 1207
    Join date : 2015-09-01
    Location : Macedonia, Hellas

    Re: Russian Navy: Status & News #3

    Post  KiloGolf Yesterday at 8:41 am

    Project Canada wrote:Serial production of gas turbine units (GTU) for the ships of the Russian Navy in return GTU Ukrainian production will be launched in Rybinsk by the end of 2017


    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