Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Russian Navy: Status & News #3

    Share

    Militarov
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 4798
    Points : 4845
    Join date : 2015-09-02
    Location : Serbia

    Re: Russian Navy: Status & News #3

    Post  Militarov on Thu Dec 01, 2016 1:49 pm

    OminousSpudd wrote: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...

    Number of real blue water ships in RuNaV can only shrink next 10 years. And atm its far, far below level they would want to have.

    USN does not need to be in your teritorial waters to perform operations however, they have little interest in bringing asssets into someones teritorial waters, purely in terms of naval operations.


    Militarov
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 4798
    Points : 4845
    Join date : 2015-09-02
    Location : Serbia

    Re: Russian Navy: Status & News #3

    Post  Militarov on Thu Dec 01, 2016 1:51 pm

    KiloGolf wrote:
    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


    Its okay, i expected worse. If lucky they will get first engines delivered in first quartal of 2018. which is better than i thought. What remains now is to see how they will cope with transmission there.

    Militarov
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 4798
    Points : 4845
    Join date : 2015-09-02
    Location : Serbia

    Re: Russian Navy: Status & News #3

    Post  Militarov on Thu Dec 01, 2016 2:07 pm

    miketheterrible wrote:
    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.

    AB weapons are outdated? Okay, then which Russian destroyer is atm armed then with "modern" warload? Also let me remind you that "modern" to you and modern to the navy are two different dimensions.

    KiloGolf
    Colonel
    Colonel

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

    Re: Russian Navy: Status & News #3

    Post  KiloGolf on Thu Dec 01, 2016 2:22 pm

    Militarov wrote:AB weapons are outdated? Okay, then which Russian destroyer is atm armed then with "modern" warload? Also let me remind you that "modern" to you and modern to the navy are two different dimensions.

    There are a few operational Soviet/Soviet-designed destroyers out there, serving in Russia (Sov and Udaloy) and China (Sov). No proper Russian ones though as of yet. I've also heard the Chinese are a step away from dumping the Sovs, could be wrong . But they have been seen sitting nicely in a port, all four of them, doing nothing.


    Militarov
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 4798
    Points : 4845
    Join date : 2015-09-02
    Location : Serbia

    Re: Russian Navy: Status & News #3

    Post  Militarov on Thu Dec 01, 2016 2:31 pm

    KiloGolf wrote:
    Militarov wrote:AB weapons are outdated? Okay, then which Russian destroyer is atm armed then with "modern" warload? Also let me remind you that "modern" to you and modern to the navy are two different dimensions.

    There are a few operational Soviet/Soviet-designed destroyers out there, serving in Russia (Sov and Udaloy) and China (Sov). No proper Russian ones though as of yet. I've also heard the Chinese are a step away from dumping the Sovs, could be wrong . But they have been seen sitting nicely in a port, all four of them, doing nothing.


    I ment in Russia ofc.

    Chinese however seems to have been performing refits on them to replace Russian weapons and subsystems.

    KiloGolf
    Colonel
    Colonel

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

    Re: Russian Navy: Status & News #3

    Post  KiloGolf on Thu Dec 01, 2016 2:37 pm

    Militarov wrote:I ment in Russia ofc.

    Chinese however seems to have been performing refits on them to replace Russian weapons and subsystems.

    I see. I guess they paid precious cash for them, recently enough, so they'll try and work things out.
    How's the boiler situation on those?

    Militarov
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 4798
    Points : 4845
    Join date : 2015-09-02
    Location : Serbia

    Re: Russian Navy: Status & News #3

    Post  Militarov on Thu Dec 01, 2016 7:34 pm

    KiloGolf wrote:
    Militarov wrote:I ment in Russia ofc.

    Chinese however seems to have been performing refits on them to replace Russian weapons and subsystems.

    I see. I guess they paid precious cash for them, recently enough, so they'll try and work things out.
    How's the boiler situation on those?

    Well they run, so i guess its in adequate condition.

    Benya
    Sergeant
    Sergeant

    Posts : 171
    Points : 175
    Join date : 2016-06-05
    Location : Budapest, Hungary

    Re: Russian Navy: Status & News #3

    Post  Benya on Thu Dec 01, 2016 9:00 pm

    Baltic fleet ships to carry out ten new voyages in upcoming year

    In the second half of 2017, the Baltic fleet ships will take part in the ‘West-2017’ military exercises

    KALINIGRAD, December 1 /TASS/. The ships and submarines of the Russian Northern Fleet will carry out voyages to the Arctic, the Atlantic Oceans and the Mediterranean Sea in the new academic year, which started on Thursday, the fleet’s press service said.

    "The Northern Fleet will continue the practice of sending ships to the Arctic, the Atlantic Oceans and the Mediterranean Sea," the press service quoted Vice-Admiral Nikolai Yevmenov as saying.

    Yevmenov said that development and improvement of the Arctic infrastructure as well as the maintenance of the fleet’s high defense capability would be the Northern Fleet’s priorities for the new academic year.

    The crews of ships, submarines and supply vessels carried out more than 30 long-distance ships and improved their naval skills in conditions of Arctic seas and other parts of the world ocean in the 2016 academic year.

    Russia’s Baltic fleet also has huge plans for the new academic year.

    Baltic fleet ships will carry out 10 voyages in the new academic year, Baltic Fleet’s Spokesman Roman Martov said on Thursday.

    "Ships and vessels continue fulfilling tasks in and outside the Baltic fleet’s area of responsibility both independently and as part of the permanent naval task force in the Mediterranean. They also call at and pay visits to foreign ports. The ships and vessels will carry out the tasks of 10 combat services in the new academic year which is much more than in the previous period," Martov stressed.
    He refused to clarify where exactly the Baltic fleet ships would head to in the future.

    In the second half of 2017, the Baltic fleet ships will take part in the ‘West-2017’ military exercises and joint international maneuvers.

    Source: Arrow http://tass.com/defense/916097


    Zapad (West)-81 was one of (if not) the biggest military excercises of the former Soviet Union, so we can expect great things from Russia on land, air and sea by next year. thumbsup  russia

    Edit: In my opinion, if the Russian MoD decides to establish a "Mediterranean Task Force", they should form it from the ships of the Black Sea Fleet, since it is more close. By saying this, I don't mean that they should relocate everything  (including Admiral Kuznetsov aircraft carrier and Peter the Great heavy guided missile cruiser) to Sevastopol. Of course NOT! What I'm really trying to point out here is that, for example Admiral Grigorovich-class frigates of the BSF could do very well if they need to attack ground targets (with Kalibr cruise missiles),or establishing territorial air defense to a certain extent (with its Stihl SAMs). But not only them, but the majority of the BSF ships (including the Moskva (Slava-class) cruiser, and the two Krivak-class frigates) can be a valuable/crucial part of this task force, if needed.

    Mindstorm
    Captain
    Captain

    Posts : 734
    Points : 917
    Join date : 2011-07-20

    Re: Russian Navy: Status & News #3

    Post  Mindstorm on Thu Dec 01, 2016 11:03 pm

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


    Sincerely Militarov i would had found very surprising if a similar opinion would had not shared by over-ocean insiders too.

    Militarov do you see, being aware of how just today in over-ocean Institutes are busy in adapting weapon systems designed around completely different CONOPS , such as BGM-109 TLAM and AGM-154, (for remain silent of the true "acrobatic thinking" of US Navy developers around the design of the possible perspective US ship-borne anti-submarine weapon) only to attempt to comply with next decade problems expected in anti surface operations , not render my assertion dismissive of theirs scientifical potential in this technological segment ,but simply realistic.  

    You will surely forgive me if i fail to remain impressed not merely by today AShM weapon selection available to US Navy at the origin of what is widely seen as the greater shortfall of US Navy anti-surface operations, but also by theirs planned replacement.

    Those are the words of the former Special Assistant to the Chief of Naval Operations and Director of his Commander’s Action Group Bryan Clark :


    "The surface fleet’s most important shortfall, as noted above, is its current range disadvantage against the anti-ship missiles most likely to be employed against U.S. forces.
    This range disadvantage means U.S. ships today can conduct only defensive AAW, ASW, and SUW; they will already be inside the ASCM range of the enemy and will be compelled to respond to attacks rather than go on offense and engage the enemy from outside his reach. The Navy is addressing this shortfall as it develops the SM-6 interceptor, LRASM, and Next Generation Land Attack Weapon (NGLAW) to replace, respectively, the Cold War-era SM-2, Harpoon, and Tomahawk. These new weapons are intended to enable offensive operations, but they will not necessarily increase the VLS capacity of surface combatants."


    http://csbaonline.org/uploads/documents/CSBA6106_Surface_Warfare_FINAL-hires.pdf

    What is even more worrisome in reading similar analytic works produced by an individual that have had a direct role in writing modern US Navy's strategy is the sincerely embarassing level of OPFOR's intelligence on which them are conceived (i believe that a simple glance at Fig.1 will produce more than a chilling shiver long the spine of western readers).

    In substance even the replacements  for those US Navy weapon systems in the anti-ship/land attack and anti-submarine role, today widely outclassed by competitors counterparts, will remain well below the performance level of 3М-54 series.

    Militarov
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 4798
    Points : 4845
    Join date : 2015-09-02
    Location : Serbia

    Re: Russian Navy: Status & News #3

    Post  Militarov on Fri Dec 02, 2016 12:22 am

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


    Sincerely Militarov i would had found very surprising if a similar opinion would had not shared by over-ocean insiders too.

    Militarov do you see, being aware of how just today in over-ocean Institutes are busy in adapting weapon systems designed around completely different CONOPS , such as BGM-109 TLAM and AGM-154, (for remain silent of the true "acrobatic thinking" of US Navy developers around the design of the possible perspective US ship-borne anti-submarine weapon) only to attempt to comply with next decade problems expected in anti surface operations , not render my assertion dismissive of theirs scientifical potential in this technological segment ,but simply realistic.  

    You will surely forgive me if i fail to remain impressed not merely by today AShM weapon selection available to US Navy at the origin of what is widely seen as the greater shortfall of US Navy anti-surface operations, but also by theirs planned replacement.

    Those are the words of the former Special Assistant to the Chief of Naval Operations and Director of his Commander’s Action Group Bryan Clark :


    "The surface fleet’s most important shortfall, as noted above, is its current range disadvantage against the anti-ship missiles most likely to be employed against U.S. forces.
    This range disadvantage means U.S. ships today can conduct only defensive AAW, ASW, and SUW; they will already be inside the ASCM range of the enemy and will be compelled to respond to attacks rather than go on offense and engage the enemy from outside his reach. The Navy is addressing this shortfall as it develops the SM-6 interceptor, LRASM, and Next Generation Land Attack Weapon (NGLAW) to replace, respectively, the Cold War-era SM-2, Harpoon, and Tomahawk. These new weapons are intended to enable offensive operations, but they will not necessarily increase the VLS capacity of surface combatants."


    http://csbaonline.org/uploads/documents/CSBA6106_Surface_Warfare_FINAL-hires.pdf

    What is even more worrisome in reading similar analytic works produced by an individual that have had a direct role in writing modern US Navy's strategy is the sincerely embarassing level of OPFOR's intelligence on which them are conceived (i believe that a simple glance at Fig.1 will produce more than a chilling shiver long the spine of western readers).

    In substance even the replacements  for those US Navy weapon systems in the anti-ship/land attack and anti-submarine role, today widely outclassed by competitors counterparts, will remain well below the performance level of 3М-54 series.

    Every system has advantages and shortcomings, i am not anyones advocate, i just do not think discarting like no threat Harpoon and Tomahawk is wise. Those are capable assets. While Harpoon truly has been recently outmatched by some Russian and EU designs, its still adequate, and still has few advantages like cost as it became dirt cheap though decades of production and its extremly versatile as it was integrated on subs, ships, aircraft, land launch platforms... which Russians are trying to do atm on larger scale. Also it entered full scale service in like... 1979?

    And ofc Clark wrote that, they write one like that about every single item in the inventory so they get more funds, they have been doing it for decades. There was famous rant about how "only 10 carriers remains", then how they need more subs, then how fleet is shrinking and they need to order 20 more destroyers etc, etc lists are endless. That is how they raise more funds, by crying.

    Also LRASM looks quite promising.

    AlfaT8
    Colonel
    Colonel

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

    Re: Russian Navy: Status & News #3

    Post  AlfaT8 on Fri Dec 02, 2016 4:01 am

    PapaDragon wrote:
    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.

    I do grasp there duties and i know Russia will not seek naval dominance, yet one must not ignore the other parties capabilities.

    Yes, the Gorshvok is an excellent ship and 16 UKSKs is a decent war load, but hear me out, if a frigate is suppose to be a step down from a destroyer, than why not make sure that that Frigate has almost half the firepower as a Destroyer.
    Dozens??... maybe, like the Buyan and the Steregushi, before they added the UKSK's, i can see that happening.

    Yes, the Uran is a good system, but right now the Ru.navy is focused on making multirole ships and the UKSK's are very critical to that, i know they will add it later, just as they did with the Buyan and the Steregushi, but i just don't grasp this 2 step approach they're using.

    Actually, when i mention Steregushi, i was mostly talking about Gremyashchiy, i will use the latter from now on.

    Well if it's easier for them to build Karakurts instead of Buyans, then why not.

    Yea, that's another thing, whether the Lider is a Destroyer or not, it's firepower is definitely of destroyer caliber, but it's sheer size (especially that tall tower) tells me that it's more a B-Cruiser, this ship confuses me, and then we have Project 21956, not much info on this one.

    hoom
    Senior Sergeant
    Senior Sergeant

    Posts : 233
    Points : 235
    Join date : 2016-05-06

    Re: Russian Navy: Status & News #3

    Post  hoom on Fri Dec 02, 2016 4:45 am

    why not make sure that that Frigate has almost half the firepower as a Destroyer.
    Depending on how you count Gorshkov has either 1/2 or 2* the firepower of an AB  unshaven

    Currently AB has an anti-ship firepower of 8* Harpoon so 16* Sizzler/Onyx is twice the firepower of an AB
    This changes when ABs get Mk41 VLS launched LRASM though.

    AB has 96* VLS
    Gorshkov has 32* Redut + 16* UKSK = 48* VLS
    2*48 = 96 so Gorshkov does actually have 1/2 the firepower in terms of VLS number (not including quad-packs or Palma/RAM).

    PapaDragon
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3667
    Points : 3779
    Join date : 2015-04-26
    Location : Fort Evil, Serbia

    Re: Russian Navy: Status & News #3

    Post  PapaDragon on Fri Dec 02, 2016 5:48 am

    AlfaT8 wrote:........

    I do grasp there duties and i know Russia will not seek naval dominance, yet one must not ignore the other parties capabilities.

    Yes, the Gorshvok is an excellent ship and 16 UKSKs is a decent war load, but hear me out, if a frigate is suppose to be a step down from a destroyer, than why not make sure that that Frigate has almost half the firepower as a Destroyer.
    Dozens??... maybe, like the Buyan and the Steregushi, before they added the UKSK's, i can see that happening.


    Gorshkov frigate has more firepower than all Russian destroyer types currently in service. They are also faster, stealthier, need less crew and can engage all types of targets unlike destroyers who are all specialized.

    They have less firepower than US destroyers but like I said, they are half the size and were never meant to go up against them, not by themselves that is. And US destroyers are also not as versatile. They are great for land attack but stuff like AA and ASh are bit anemic for vessels of their size. Don't know about anti sub part.


    AlfaT8 wrote:
    Yes, the Uran is a good system, but right now the Ru.navy is focused on making multirole ships and the UKSK's are very critical to that, i know they will add it later, just as they did with the Buyan and the Steregushi, but i just don't grasp this 2 step approach they're using.

    Actually, when i mention Steregushi, i was mostly talking about Gremyashchiy, i will use the latter from now on.

    Well if it's easier for them to build Karakurts instead of Buyans, then why not.


    Fate of Gremashi is still undecided so it's wait and see on that part. But Drzkii is definitely next corvette.

    Uran is OK system for corvettes. It's capable, cheap, standardized and since these ships will not be roaming too far from coast alone it should do fine. If they go further away they will have bigger boys covering them. And remeber that they have Redut and Paket-M systems. So that is quite a punch.

    Also, Uran might have ''hidden'' land attack function that we don't know about just like Granit and Bastion turned out to have.

    As for Karakurts they are definitely easier to build. And unlike Buyans they use strictly domestic components, namely engines. Final batch of Buyans is late because engines have to be imported. They would have been finished otherwise by now.

    AlfaT8 wrote:

    Yea, that's another thing, whether the Lider is a Destroyer or not, it's firepower is definitely of destroyer caliber, but it's sheer size (especially that tall tower) tells me that it's more a B-Cruiser, this ship confuses me, and then we have Project 21956, not much info on this one.

    Upgraded Nakhimonov battlecruiser will have 80 UKSK launchers. Lider will have 250 missiles, 80 of which will be UKSK type. So Lider, even though it will be smaller, is definitely successor of upgraded Kirov class, that much is certain.

    Russian and American ships are hard to compare simply because both navies operate completely different ship classes both in size and purpose. Like comparing different models of minivans and pickups. Both are cars yes, but different categories completely.

    eehnie
    Lieutenant
    Lieutenant

    Posts : 564
    Points : 589
    Join date : 2015-05-13

    Re: Russian Navy: Status & News #3

    Post  eehnie on Fri Dec 02, 2016 1:06 pm

    KiloGolf wrote:
    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


    Which is the problem with this?

    Singular_Transform
    Private
    Private

    Posts : 42
    Points : 44
    Join date : 2016-11-13

    Re: Russian Navy: Status & News #3

    Post  Singular_Transform on Fri Dec 02, 2016 5:43 pm

    hoom wrote:
    why not make sure that that Frigate has almost half the firepower as a Destroyer.
    Depending on how you count Gorshkov has either 1/2 or 2* the firepower of an AB  unshaven

    Currently AB has an anti-ship firepower of 8* Harpoon so 16* Sizzler/Onyx is twice the firepower of an AB
    This changes when ABs get Mk41 VLS launched LRASM though.

    AB has 96* VLS
    Gorshkov has 32* Redut + 16* UKSK = 48* VLS
    2*48 = 96 so Gorshkov does actually have 1/2 the firepower in terms of VLS number (not including quad-packs or Palma/RAM).

    So, you saying that 8 harpoon=8 Onxy , and 1 tomahawk = 1 Onyx?



    So, to make correct calculation, to destroy the same ship how many onyx, tomahawk and harpoon required at 50km and 300 km distance? Just the establish the qualitative ratios as well : )

    AlfaT8
    Colonel
    Colonel

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

    Re: Russian Navy: Status & News #3

    Post  AlfaT8 on Fri Dec 02, 2016 7:14 pm

    hoom wrote:
    why not make sure that that Frigate has almost half the firepower as a Destroyer.
    Depending on how you count Gorshkov has either 1/2 or 2* the firepower of an AB  unshaven

    Currently AB has an anti-ship firepower of 8* Harpoon so 16* Sizzler/Onyx is twice the firepower of an AB
    This changes when ABs get Mk41 VLS launched LRASM though.

    AB has 96* VLS
    Gorshkov has 32* Redut + 16* UKSK = 48* VLS
    2*48 = 96 so Gorshkov does actually have 1/2 the firepower in terms of VLS number (not including quad-packs or Palma/RAM).

    Uhm... the thing with the U.S VLS's is that it's unified for cruise, AntSh, Air defense and recently ABM missiles, meaning if the U.S desires it they can arm the ship with 96 AntSh missiles, heck the entire ABM controversy is because of this.

    Mindstorm
    Captain
    Captain

    Posts : 734
    Points : 917
    Join date : 2011-07-20

    Re: Russian Navy: Status & News #3

    Post  Mindstorm on Fri Dec 02, 2016 7:23 pm

    Militarov wrote:And ofc Clark wrote that, they write one like that about every single item in the inventory so they get more funds, they have been doing it for decades.

    Do you see Militarov ,if what you think (a very odd idea regularly "recycled" by some western apologetic people any time an official document produced by the same western military insiders highlight the backwardness inferiority of some of theirs products in comparison to competitor's ones ) would be correct then we would observe a presentation vastly bloated of the specifics of competitors systems so to persuade US MoD to fund a new R&D program.

    Well in the document i have pointed out ,as well in literally dozen of other ones produced only in the last few years.....up to autumn 2015.... used even to present to US generals the overall situation concerning the capability of theirs systems in comparison to those of likely opponents , you can see the exact opposite behaviour.

    You can check by yourself - very clear examples are slide 10 and 11-.


    http://csbaonline.org/research/publications/commanding-the-seas-a-plan-to-reinvigorate-u-s-navy-surface-warfare/


    I can distinctively remember a document of few years ago - i think of 2012 or 2013 - used to present to US Navy Command a model of the new strategic measures and research and acquisition plans to adopt within 2025 where was explained that US Navy still retained a distinctive advantage in land attack cruise missile engagement range and that main opposing forces ,among which Russia and China armed just with SS-N-27, even if conceding to them some unparalleled features in lethality and versatility of employment, cause a mysterious and not further specified "technical backwardness in cruise missile's engine fuel efficiency", would have been forced in a potential conflict to limit theirs land attacks only to near shore ground installations , 300-350 km from those ships, therefore well within the potential engagement range of air groups of stance in main air bases present those theatre , supposedly safely outside the reach of those enemy land attacks !  


    Practically marketing approach of main US military related firms is the exact contrary of what outlined in the apologetic hypothesis ; rather that hypothesis is generated and predate exactly upon the same irrational, and often fanatic wish of superiority deep rooted in US military culture that render so efficient the marketing practice.

    Any of those US firms present always theirs in production systems as those assuring "unparalleled superiority", "complete primacy", "total dominance".....and so on with similar US- thinking-friendly slogans....over those now produced anywhere else on the planet and presenting perspective products as those extending that "dominace" over any new system now in development by part of any opponent for the next 15-20-30 years.

    Militarov you will easily realize that honestly declaring that practically all missiles in the AShM, antisubarine, ground attack, anti-torpedo, anti-AShM roles available today to US Navy surface ships are horribly outmatched under practically any cardinal parameter by those in service with the "hated opponent" (that in observance to cold war era old PsyOp mandates must be always untruthfully presented as technologically inferior and "catching -up" with US products Razz) and that the new devolopment plans, using in reality nothing more than old weapons re-engineerized to adapt to new roles ,will still hardly be in the same league with those now in-production enemy systems , when them will have likely already adopted the new generation of those calss of weapons, will hardly gain any support of funding in the US Congress for the companies producing them.        
         

    You will very very rarely, if any, find a serious domestic military analyst or insider personel ever boast superiority over foreign firms in the field of data sharing, processing and dissemination systems, cooperative and integrated intelligence and surveillance systems, airborne UAVs, microprocessor production and so on for dozen of other military related fields ,but on the other side you can find countless of western military operatives , at practically any level of responsability, literally living blindly in a phantasy world when the fields of theirs wide technical inferirority are concerned and just on that cultural "deviation" predate the marketing tactics of the giants of US military industry and theirs analysis community.

    KiloGolf
    Colonel
    Colonel

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

    Re: Russian Navy: Status & News #3

    Post  KiloGolf on Fri Dec 02, 2016 7:36 pm

    Singular_Transform wrote:So, to make correct calculation, to destroy the same ship how many onyx, tomahawk and harpoon required at 50km and 300 km distance? Just the establish the qualitative ratios as well : )

    Probably one good harpoon hit is enough to waste a frigate like the AG (0 of which are operational). When the opposing force operates 22 CGs, 63 DDGs and 51 SSNs, one or two or ten vessels, with whatever silver bullet load-out, are very much toast. The reality is quite harsh here, this isn't a "Navy I would like" discussion. So dismissing such a threat is unwise. The AB reigns supreme at the moment and seemingly for the next couple of decades.

    AlfaT8
    Colonel
    Colonel

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

    Re: Russian Navy: Status & News #3

    Post  AlfaT8 on Fri Dec 02, 2016 7:59 pm

    PapaDragon wrote:
    AlfaT8 wrote:........

    I do grasp there duties and i know Russia will not seek naval dominance, yet one must not ignore the other parties capabilities.

    Yes, the Gorshvok is an excellent ship and 16 UKSKs is a decent war load, but hear me out, if a frigate is suppose to be a step down from a destroyer, than why not make sure that that Frigate has almost half the firepower as a Destroyer.
    Dozens??... maybe, like the Buyan and the Steregushi, before they added the UKSK's, i can see that happening.

    Gorshkov frigate has more firepower than all Russian destroyer types currently in service. They are also faster, stealthier, need less crew and can engage all types of targets unlike destroyers who are all specialized.

    They have less firepower than US destroyers but like I said, they are half the size and were never meant to go up against them, not by themselves that is. And US destroyers are also not as versatile. They are great for land attack but stuff like AA and ASh are bit anemic for vessels of their size. Don't know about anti sub part.

    Yea, i always though Russian Destroyers were odd in that prospective, it's like the Soviets were trying to make it an ASW ship with token AntSh capabilities.

    I know that, but at the same time i also believe Russia shouldn't ignore the adversaries combat capabilities, from what i can see the R.navy is putting high hopes in there Supersonic and soon Hypersonic missiles, while they're hoping to offset any firepower advantage of the adversary with capable Air defenses, it's a good strategy, but why hold back.

    PapaDragon wrote:
    AlfaT8 wrote:
    Yes, the Uran is a good system, but right now the Ru.navy is focused on making multirole ships and the UKSK's are very critical to that, i know they will add it later, just as they did with the Buyan and the Steregushi, but i just don't grasp this 2 step approach they're using.

    Actually, when i mention Steregushi, i was mostly talking about Gremyashchiy, i will use the latter from now on.

    Well if it's easier for them to build Karakurts instead of Buyans, then why not.

    Fate of Gremashi is still undecided so it's wait and see on that part. But Drzkii is definitely next corvette.

    Uran is OK system for corvettes. It's capable, cheap, standardized and since these ships will not be roaming too far from coast alone it should do fine. If they go further away they will have bigger boys covering them. And remeber that they have Redut and Paket-M systems. So that is quite a punch.

    Also, Uran might have ''hidden'' land attack function that we don't know about just like Granit and Bastion turned out to have.

    As for Karakurts they are definitely easier to build. And unlike Buyans they use strictly domestic components, namely engines. Final batch of Buyans is late because engines have to be imported. They would have been finished otherwise by now.

    I am not to worried, the Drskii will without a doubt get UKSKs later.

    Yes, the Uran is OK, and sure it might have those "hidden" functions, but that ain't the point, the R.navy is hell bent on mutirole vessels and the UKSKs the cornerstone to that strategy.

    Wow, so even the Buyan got hit by the engine issue, the hell.

    PapaDragon wrote:
    AlfaT8 wrote:

    Yea, that's another thing, whether the Lider is a Destroyer or not, it's firepower is definitely of destroyer caliber, but it's sheer size (especially that tall tower) tells me that it's more a B-Cruiser, this ship confuses me, and then we have Project 21956, not much info on this one.

    Upgraded Nakhimonov battlecruiser will have 80 UKSK launchers. Lider will have 250 missiles, 80 of which will be UKSK type. So Lider, even though it will be smaller, is definitely successor of upgraded Kirov class, that much is certain.

    Russian and American ships are hard to compare simply because both navies operate completely different ship classes both in size and purpose. Like comparing different models of minivans and pickups. Both are cars yes, but different categories completely.

    I see, so your of the same opinion.

    With respect to size and weight, they are very difficult to compare, to say nothing of there different doctrines, but we can draw some lines if looking at weapon loads.

    Tolstoy
    Private
    Private

    Posts : 12
    Points : 12
    Join date : 2015-07-12

    Re: Russian Navy: Status & News #3

    Post  Tolstoy on Fri Dec 02, 2016 9:38 pm

    Mindstorm wrote:
    You will surely forgive me if i fail to remain impressed not merely by today AShM weapon selection available to US Navy at the origin of what is widely seen as the greater shortfall of US Navy anti-surface operations, but also by theirs planned replacement.

    But US is doing a good job of targeting enemy radar & coms with the Advanced Radiation Guided Missile(AARGM).

    AARGM packaged the new guidance into HARM missile bodies, while AARGM-ER takes the internals into a new missile.AARGM utilized HARM motor, body & warhead and replaced the guidance while ER retains the guidance and replaces body & propulsion.


    Singular_Transform
    Private
    Private

    Posts : 42
    Points : 44
    Join date : 2016-11-13

    Re: Russian Navy: Status & News #3

    Post  Singular_Transform on Fri Dec 02, 2016 10:12 pm

    KiloGolf wrote:
    Singular_Transform wrote:So, to make correct calculation, to destroy the same ship how many onyx, tomahawk and harpoon required at 50km and 300 km distance? Just the establish the qualitative ratios as well : )

    Probably one good harpoon hit is enough to waste a frigate like the AG (0 of which are operational). When the opposing force operates 22 CGs, 63 DDGs and 51 SSNs, one or two or ten vessels, with whatever silver bullet load-out, are very much toast. The reality is quite harsh here, this isn't a "Navy I would like" discussion. So dismissing such a threat is unwise. The AB reigns supreme at the moment and seemingly for the next couple of decades.

    If you talk about China and Russia then not the actual situation is the interesting, but the trajectory where it is going



    Between 91-10 there hasn't been any procurement activity, they started it recently.

    In the next 10-15 years the Russian (and Chinese) navy will change dramatically.


    We see the changes of the US navy, because the naval tomahawk is a future development.


    So, say, your ship has 16 onyx, and 64 SAM.

    How many tomahawk and SAM needed by the enemy to have the same defence/kill chance like you?



    I calculated 64 tomahawk,and 64 sam. : )

    PapaDragon
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3667
    Points : 3779
    Join date : 2015-04-26
    Location : Fort Evil, Serbia

    Re: Russian Navy: Status & News #3

    Post  PapaDragon on Fri Dec 02, 2016 10:16 pm

    AlfaT8 wrote:..........

    Yea, i always though Russian Destroyers were odd in that prospective, it's like the Soviets were trying to make it an ASW ship with token AntSh capabilities.

    I know that, but at the same time i also believe Russia shouldn't ignore the adversaries combat capabilities, from what i can see the R.navy is putting high hopes in there Supersonic and soon Hypersonic missiles, while they're hoping to offset any firepower advantage of the adversary with capable Air defenses, it's a good strategy, but why hold back.


    They are not ignoring adversary's capabilities, they are just dealing with them within their budgetary and doctrinal boundaries.

    And they are not really holding back. They have plenty of tools available, it's just that most of those tools are land based.

    For nuclear countries above certain size facing each other surface fleets are not there to fight head on, their job is to draw attention to themselves in order to create an opening for nuclear submarines. They don't expect to survive direct confrontation one way or the other despite who wins the naval battle because their (and everyone else's) fate will be decided by other branches of the military. This goes for US surface navy as well regardless of their size.

    Surface fleets come into play when confronting non-nuclear medium sized enemies in conventional war. That is where all that weaponry they carry can (and does) decide the outcome.


    And you are definitely right about comparing ship classes of RU and US Navies.


    Singular_Transform
    Private
    Private

    Posts : 42
    Points : 44
    Join date : 2016-11-13

    Re: Russian Navy: Status & News #3

    Post  Singular_Transform on Fri Dec 02, 2016 10:44 pm

    KiloGolf wrote:lf"]

    Probably one good harpoon hit is enough to waste a frigate like the AG (0 of which are operational). When the opposing force operates 22 CGs, 63 DDGs and 51 SSNs, one or two or ten vessels, with whatever silver bullet load-out, are very much toast. The reality is quite harsh here, this isn't a "Navy I would like" discussion. So dismissing such a threat is unwise. The AB reigns supreme at the moment and seemingly for the next couple of decades.

    Harpoon is short range. The AB never has chance to fire it against any ship with long rate missiles.


    There is a deep misunderstanding about the tasks of the US navy.

    It needs to protect a worldwide merchant network, that ship oil / materials/parts for the US economy and US navy.



    It is not simply a problem of coastal defence, sinking dozen VLCC means serious issue with the oil supply to the US.

    Additionally if the US won't become irrelevant then it needs to spend big parts of its navy ( 60-70% ) to the Chinese sea, means that small part of it available only for any other missions.



    Militarov
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 4798
    Points : 4845
    Join date : 2015-09-02
    Location : Serbia

    Re: Russian Navy: Status & News #3

    Post  Militarov on Fri Dec 02, 2016 10:50 pm

    Singular_Transform wrote:
    KiloGolf wrote:lf"]

    Probably one good harpoon hit is enough to waste a frigate like the AG (0 of which are operational). When the opposing force operates 22 CGs, 63 DDGs and 51 SSNs, one or two or ten vessels, with whatever silver bullet load-out, are very much toast. The reality is quite harsh here, this isn't a "Navy I would like" discussion. So dismissing such a threat is unwise. The AB reigns supreme at the moment and seemingly for the next couple of decades.

    Harpoon is short range. The AB never has chance to fire it against any ship with long rate missiles.


    There is a deep misunderstanding about the tasks of the US navy.

    It needs to protect a worldwide merchant network, that ship oil / materials/parts for the US economy and US navy.



    It is not simply a problem of coastal defence, sinking dozen VLCC means serious issue with the oil supply to the US.

    Additionally if the US won't become irrelevant then it needs to spend big parts of its navy ( 60-70% ) to the Chinese sea, means that small part of it available only for any other missions.



    Tomahawk Block IVs can be used aganist surface combatants too however.

    miroslav
    Private
    Private

    Posts : 13
    Points : 15
    Join date : 2016-11-16

    Re: Russian Navy: Status & News #3

    Post  miroslav on Fri Dec 02, 2016 11:33 pm

    KiloGolf wrote:
    Singular_Transform wrote:So, to make correct calculation, to destroy the same ship how many onyx, tomahawk and harpoon required at 50km and 300 km distance? Just the establish the qualitative ratios as well : )

    Probably one good harpoon hit is enough to waste a frigate like the AG (0 of which are operational). When the opposing force operates 22 CGs, 63 DDGs and 51 SSNs, one or two or ten vessels, with whatever silver bullet load-out, are very much toast. The reality is quite harsh here, this isn't a "Navy I would like" discussion. So dismissing such a threat is unwise. The AB reigns supreme at the moment and seemingly for the next couple of decades.

    That not true, I don't know where you people get your data but a single hit from a Harpoon missile is not nearly enough to put a 135m ship made out of a full steel construction out of battle let alone to sink it.

    Just to put some perspective it has been calculated bu actual designers an engineers that a 95m frigate (or heavy corvett what ever you like) with a aluminum superstructure needs 3-4 direct hits with an Exocet missile (170kg warhead) in order to sink it. Meaning at least 2 an maybe 3 hits with a Harpoon (225kg warhead). An as you can guess it, this would be about the right description for a 20380 series of corvettes.

    On the other hand Admiral Gorskov and Grigorovic ships have a full steel construction and are 125 and 135m long respectively, the idea that a single Harpoon hit would put them out of a fight fast is not real. But there might be something that I am not seeing here so correct me if I am wrong.

    Lets not forget that when warships are designed they are designed not to be sunk with one hit of what ever the potential adversary of the same size has to hit them with.

    In this regard Russian navy has a clear ASM advantage (at the moment) of being able to fire first, at least 100km before the Burks get in range of the Harpoons, the missiles are 1.5-2.5 times faster (Onix) and have an equals size warhead AND lets not forget that the Adm. Gorskov or similar does not have to turn the whole ship to be able to fire the next salvo of 4 missiles like the Burks have to.

    Sponsored content

    Re: Russian Navy: Status & News #3

    Post  Sponsored content Today at 11:10 am


      Current date/time is Sun Dec 04, 2016 11:10 am