Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Russian Navy: Status & News #4

    Share
    avatar
    eehnie
    Lieutenant Colonel
    Lieutenant Colonel

    Posts : 936
    Points : 961
    Join date : 2015-05-13

    Re: Russian Navy: Status & News #4

    Post  eehnie on Sun Apr 09, 2017 5:23 am

    GarryB wrote:Purchasing ships for a particular role is quite sensible, and as Mil pointed out the British commandeered some cruise ships to use as troop transports in the Falklands war in 1982 so it is common practise to get extra resources for a conflict that requires capabilities and capacities you don't normally need in normal operations.

    Now that they have some time they can evaluate the designs for the role and decide on new designs for future use in similar operations with a better understanding of what they need and want.

    This is a new operation that will take the ships away from normal duties for an extended period of time... it just makes sense to buy new vessels.

    Making new vessels would take too long, and using existing vessels means those vessels will need to be replaced with something else...

    Did you see somewhere 500 auxiliary ships in the UK Navy? What the UK does is good because they do it?

    This was also a weakness of the UK Navy. Sorry. They did it because they had not the ships, but the Russian Navy is stronger, and was not in need of it.
    avatar
    PapaDragon
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 4125
    Points : 4235
    Join date : 2015-04-26
    Location : Fort Evil, Serbia

    Re: Russian Navy: Status & News #4

    Post  PapaDragon on Sun Apr 09, 2017 8:11 am


    We interrupt you daily circlejerk to notify you that Coast Guard patrol ship "Predanii" has been launched in St. Petersburg:

    https://sdelanounas.ru/blogs/92275/



    10th so far. We are in double digits now. thumbsup
    avatar
    Militarov
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5364
    Points : 5409
    Join date : 2015-09-02
    Location : Serbia

    Re: Russian Navy: Status & News #4

    Post  Militarov on Sun Apr 09, 2017 10:39 am

    eehnie wrote:
    Militarov wrote:
    eehnie wrote:Surely the weakest part of the entire Russian operation in Syria has been the purchase of 4 cargo ships:

    9132 tons Dvinitsa-50 http://www.kchf.ru/ship/vspomog/dvinitsa50.htm
    7250 tons Vologda-50 http://www.kchf.ru/ship/vspomog/vologda50.htm
    4509 tons Kyzyl-60 http://www.kchf.ru/ship/vspomog/kyzyl60.htm
    2099 tons Kazan-60 http://www.kchf.ru/ship/vspomog/kazan60.htm

    I think it was not necessary for a relatively small operation like this of Syria. With 523 auxilary ships today for many roles, without count these 4 cargo ships, the need of the purchase seems not a real need. These 523 cover multiple roles, but I think Russia would have enough dry cargo transport ships to this operation without a purchase. The closest auxiliary ships of the Russian Navy would be:

    14165 tons Yauza Project 550 http://fleetphoto.ru/ship/20520/ (Also in Syria now)

    7230 tons Yamal Project 596P http://fleetphoto.ru/ship/17555/
    3947 tons Pechora Project 740 http://fleetphoto.ru/ship/14386/
    1915 tons Yrghiz Project 572 http://fleetphoto.ru/ship/42760/
    1915 tons Bira Project 572 http://fleetphoto.ru/ship/716/
    1192 tons VTR-140 Project 773 modified to dry-cargo ship http://fleetphoto.ru/ship/26719/

    Without entering in specific armament transport ships (Project 20180/20181, Project 1791, Project 20360 and Project 1823). Also to increase the use of amphibious landing ships would be in the mix to finnish the use of these four ships in the short term.

    What would Russian MoD do without your advices i wonder, cease to exist probably.

    Majority of auxilary ships is in bad shape, liked we that or not, and they need to operate for a decade more, many of them till replacements come will sail more than that even. Now what is better idea, to save abit existing auxilary ships by buying junk you can discard after or use your in not so great shape ships?

    On top of everything Ropucha class here was used out of their projected role, and it was more than clearly visible on them after few trips.

    Also paper is one thing, reality totally another, fact that someone listed up 500+ auxilary ships in RuNAV means literally nothing. That list takes everything from floating cranes to harbour tugs, plus what is available in reality? You have few dozen ships that havent sailed in a decade that are still on nomenclature of Navy listed as active, and not only auxilary.

    UK used few dozen civilian ships and even tourist cruisers during Fokland crysis, thats how it goes.

    Oh, and here you come to the rescue of Russia, just with false statements about how bad is the state of the auxiliary ship fleet of the Russian Navy.

    What is what hurted you more. It was because I said that this was the weakest part of the Russian operation in Syria, which in fact shows the overall solidness of the operation, or it was because I said that the even this was not necessary because Russia has ships in use for it?

    "Majority of auxiliary ships is in bad shape" comments and blah, blah, blah, is just the weakness I was talking about. This purchase just opens the door to these kind of wrong comments, that of course you are between the first people to use in this supposed defense of Russia.

    Just my comment was because of this, and to show that this is not the case, with links where is possible to see recent pictures of every ship, and that the Russian Navy has between its 523 (without these 4) auxiliary ships all the necessary for the operation in Syria, where 23 auxiliary ships are being used at this point.

    No, the Russian Navy is not as ineffective to have not the 23 needed auxiliary ships for Syria between their 523. And not, the Russian Navy is not in a situation where a "majority of auxiliary ships is in bad shape".

    Russia can shut-up easily the people with arguments like yours. And I expect to do it. I do not advice, I expect that Russia does it because is logical, and is economically positive to get a return from the resale of these ships.

    And do not worry very much, because a part of the mentioned projects of armament transport ships are quite new, and there are several more ordered and in production. Enough for  future operation like this in the future.

    I am not sure are you even aware how tiny this Syrian operation is on global scale. Silly tiny port Bar in Montenegro pulls though it more load in a month than Russians transported till this moment by both air and sea for all this time.

    Certain conflicts in last 3 decades engaged as much as 300 transport and tanker ships, scale of which was HUGE. And you are painting us here with "solidness" of operations? Go away seriously your statements are getting more retarded by each day.

    And yes, majority of auxilary ships are in sorry state, let alone fact majority of the designs are from 70s and 80s which were built with totally different idea than today. Half dry cargo, half tanker capable ocean going support ships and similar. Roll-on/roll-off ships of major size also basically do not exist and are crucial.

    Also "people like you", which people? People that like to look at things as they are? Educated people?

    Or people like you that make 5 posts a week:

    "I THINK RUSSIA SHOULD SEND TO SYRIA 50.000 TANKS AND MOABS TO SHOW HOW ***** WE ARE".

    lol1
    avatar
    eehnie
    Lieutenant Colonel
    Lieutenant Colonel

    Posts : 936
    Points : 961
    Join date : 2015-05-13

    Re: Russian Navy: Status & News #4

    Post  eehnie on Sun Apr 09, 2017 11:03 am

    I have been the first critic, but where there is some reason to be critic, I will not agree with unfair critics about the lack of capacity or the bad state of the fleet of auxiliary ships of the Russian Navy, and less from people with a proved wrong trajectory here, like this Militarov.

    If it was not clear enough, the best to prove what I'm saying and rule out some habitual negative mantras, is to expand the list posted before with more ships available for the Russian Navy. And also to include the ships under construction today looking at the future capability of the Russian Navy fleet.

    As said, surely the weakest part of the entire Russian operation in Syria has been the purchase of 4 cargo ships:

    9132 tons Dvinitsa-50 http://www.kchf.ru/ship/vspomog/dvinitsa50.htm
    7250 tons Vologda-50 http://www.kchf.ru/ship/vspomog/vologda50.htm
    4509 tons Kyzyl-60 http://www.kchf.ru/ship/vspomog/kyzyl60.htm
    2099 tons Kazan-60 http://www.kchf.ru/ship/vspomog/kazan60.htm

    As said, I think it was not necessary for a relatively small operation like this of Syria. With 523 auxilary ships today for many roles, without count these 4 cargo ships, the need of the purchase seems not a real need. These 523 cover multiple roles, but I think Russia would have enough dry cargo and armament transport ships to this operation without a purchase:

    14165 tons Yauza Project 550 http://fleetphoto.ru/ship/20520/ (Also in Syria now)

    7230 tons Yamal Project 596P http://fleetphoto.ru/ship/17555/
    6300 tons Akademik Kovalev Project 20180/20181 http://fleetphoto.ru/ship/42639/
    4473 tons Daugaba Project 1791 http://fleetphoto.ru/ship/33930/
    3947 tons Pechora Project 740 http://fleetphoto.ru/ship/14386/
    1985 tons VTR-79 Project 20360 http://fleetphoto.ru/ship/3205/
    1985 tons Viktor Cherokov Project 20360 http://fleetphoto.ru/ship/60772/
    1915 tons Yrghiz Project 572 http://fleetphoto.ru/ship/42760/
    1915 tons Bira Project 572 http://fleetphoto.ru/ship/716/
    1243 tons VTR-139 Project 1807 modified to armament transport ship http://fleetphoto.ru/ship/35262/
    1192 tons VTR-140 Project 773 modified to dry-cargo ship http://fleetphoto.ru/ship/26719/

    6300 tons Akademik Makeev Project 20180/20181 http://fleetphoto.ru/ship/59962/ (Under construction, expected by 2018)
    2500 tons ?????? Project 20360 http://russianships.info/eng/support/project_20360.htm (Under construction expected by 2019)
    2500 tons ?????? Project 20360 http://russianships.info/eng/support/project_20360.htm (Under construction expected by 2020)

    6000 tons Ivan Gren Project 11711 http://fleetphoto.ru/ship/25277/ Landing ship, combat ship, not auxiliary (Under construction, expected by 2017)
    6000 tons Pyotr Morgunov Project 11711 http://fleetphoto.ru/ship/59957/ Landing ship, combat ship, not auxiliary (Under construction, expected by 2018)
    4012 tons Konstantin Olshanskiy Project 775 http://fleetphoto.ru/ship/4752/ Landing ship, combat ship, not auxiliary (Captured to Ukaine, potential introduction)
    4012 tons Oslyabya Project 775 http://fleetphoto.ru/ship/17125/ Landing ship, combat ship, not auxiliary (To be repaired)

    Ships marked with the same color, different of black, are of almost the same size.

    Some questions used by previous commenters to justify the purchase that in fact mean bigger critizism to Russian Navy than mine:

    1.- How many classic cargo ships Ru navy have in that 523 au ships? And how many of them could be taken from their daily missions and be sent to Syria for years? Who will do their job during this Syrian campain? How many of them are big enought to be usefull in supplying Syria mission?

    The previous list and some detail about ships in bad state explained later answer this question in the refered to the ships over 1000 tons. Also it would be possible to include in the list one of the ships captured to Ukraine, but I did not. This one:

    4012 tons Konstantin Olshanskiy Project 775 http://fleetphoto.ru/ship/4752/ Landing ship, combat ship, not auxiliary (Captured to Ukraine, potential introduction)

    There are 34 ships more under 1000 tons in the Russian Navy, including both the combat fleet (310 ships) and auxiliary fleet (523 ships), but without include the Coast Guard fleet and other non military gubernmental ships.

    In the 525 there are

    2.- Are you aware that Russia have to supply not only its forces in Syria, but SAA as well?

    Obviously yes. Russia is doing it, not? Is doing it with the group of ships deployed to Syria (60 ships deployed, 23 of them auxiliary, plus some temporary participations) that includes a good amount of amphibious landing ships and these 4 cargo ships purchased for the campaign.

    The supplying proces of the Russian forces and Syria would not be damaged just replacing these 4 purchased ships by other ships not deployed in Syria until now that are cited in the previous lists.

    3.- It has been an inappropriate use of amphibious landing ships in Syria?

    No. Amphibious landing ships as military concept are sea transport ships with some additional armament and with the capability of amphibious landing, to use when there are not proper infrastructure for landing. But of course these ships are not to be used only on amphibious landing operations. These ships are combat transport ships that can be used in every operation of military sea transport in contested areas. This is a fairly proper use.

    While I included not the landing amphibious ships deployed to Syria, I included the amphibious landing ships under construction to show properly the future sea transport capabilty of the Russian Navy.

    4.- It has been here a problem of lack of capacity in the auxiliary fleet of the Russian Navy to justify the purchase of these 4 ships?

    No. Obviously looking at the list the available capability was superior to the purchased capability. The Russian Navy has today, and also had in 2015 the necessary to afford a campaign like this of Syria.

    If the UK was in need of purchasing external ships for the campaign in the Falkland Island, it proves not that this was good or bad, it only proves that the UK Navy is less capable than the Russian Navy. And more taking into account the difference of size of both campaigns.

    5.- It has been here a problem of bad state of the ships of the auxiliary fleet of the Russian Navy?

    No. In the previous list have been ruled out the ships looking in bad state. The ships included seem active at this point, despite to be veteran in some cases. But do not think I ruled out many ships looking in bad state. I only ruled out one, that is not an auxiliary ship:

    4012 tons Oslyabya Project 775 http://fleetphoto.ru/ship/17125/ Landing ship, combat ship, not auxiliary (To be repaired)

    The situation is not like the people say. There are old ships, there are auxiliary ships waiting to be scrapped, but it affects not to the capability of the Russian Navy to develop an operation like this of Syria.

    6.- It makes sense the purchase of ships to keep and reserve the oldest ships of the auxiliary fleet of the Russian Navy for future operations and to wait until new ships be built?

    No. It not makes sense because of two reasons.

    First, because the oldest ships are to be used. If necessary, the same purchase would be possible in the future, when some of the current ships are totally exhausted, if new ships are not then available. Also in some years the ships that would be purchased would be more modern than the ships purchased now.

    Second, because in the future, the lack of ships for the role is not guaranted, looking at the ships under construction now. Some big ships are expected to come in the short term, and even some delay would not be critic. Plus, some additional ship can be ordered. As consequence, the need of a purchase like this in the future is not guaranted.

    7.- Why are not used and built ships like the Yauza of the Project 550?

    Basically because it is a giant ship, that must be used near its full capability to be economically competitive. It means giant loses in case of sinking.

    8.- Can Russia resale the ships recovering the money?

    Yes. Russia did not purchase these ships paying overprice.

    9.- Why this has been the weakest part of the whole campaign in Syria?

    Because it opens the door to all these boring negative mantras habitually used in relation with the Russian Navy. The Russian navy can make shut-up all them easily eliminationg these 4 purchased cargo ships from the campaign and replacing them with other own ships available. The people should be recognizing the hability of the Russian Navy of affording a whole operation like this by its own means instead of having to support all this critizism about their overall capabilities. This has been a little unnecessary mistake that helps to hidde the real merit of the Russian Navy.


    Last edited by eehnie on Sun Apr 09, 2017 9:08 pm; edited 5 times in total
    avatar
    Isos
    Lieutenant
    Lieutenant

    Posts : 525
    Points : 529
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Re: Russian Navy: Status & News #4

    Post  Isos on Sun Apr 09, 2017 11:28 am

    I am not sure are you even aware how tiny this Syrian operation is on global scale. Silly tiny port Bar in Montenegro pulls though it more load in a month than Russians transported till this moment by both air and sea for all this time.

    Certain conflicts in last 3 decades engaged as much as 300 transport and tanker ships, scale of which was HUGE. And you are painting us here with "solidness" of operations? Go away seriously your statements are getting more retarded by each day.

    And yes, majority of auxilary ships are in sorry state, let alone fact majority of the designs are from 70s and 80s which were built with totally different idea than today. Half dry cargo, half tanker capable ocean going support ships and similar. Roll-on/roll-off ships of major size also basically do not exist and are crucial.

    Also "people like you", which people? People that like to look at things as they are? Educated people?

    Or people like you that make 5 posts a week:

    "I THINK RUSSIA SHOULD SEND TO SYRIA 50.000 TANKS AND MOABS TO SHOW HOW ***** WE ARE".

    What's the point for them to have auxilary ships in big numbers ? They have this "little base" in Syria and that's all. All the stuff they send there is more than enough, they are not building and army to rule all the Seas from Syria. For transporting Something between their onw fleets they have trains and cargo planes, maritime routes would be too much dangerous for them in case of a war. Even Houtis manage to destroy one of them ...

    France has Mistral class but yet they used Russian Antonov for shiping military equipement in all their op.
    avatar
    Militarov
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5364
    Points : 5409
    Join date : 2015-09-02
    Location : Serbia

    Re: Russian Navy: Status & News #4

    Post  Militarov on Sun Apr 09, 2017 11:30 am

    eehnie wrote:I have been the first critic, but where there is some reason to be critic, I will not agree with unfair critics about the lack of capacity or the bad state of the fleet of auxiliary ships of the Russian Navy, and less from people with a proved wrong trajectory here, like this Militarov.

    If it was not clear enough, the best to prove what I'm saying and rule out some habitual negative mantras, is to expand the list posted before with more ships available for the Russian Navy. And also to include the ships under construction today looking at the future capability of the Russian Navy fleet.

    As said, surely the weakest part of the entire Russian operation in Syria has been the purchase of 4 cargo ships:

    9132 tons Dvinitsa-50 http://www.kchf.ru/ship/vspomog/dvinitsa50.htm
    7250 tons Vologda-50 http://www.kchf.ru/ship/vspomog/vologda50.htm
    4509 tons Kyzyl-60 http://www.kchf.ru/ship/vspomog/kyzyl60.htm
    2099 tons Kazan-60 http://www.kchf.ru/ship/vspomog/kazan60.htm

    As said, I think it was not necessary for a relatively small operation like this of Syria. With 523 auxilary ships today for many roles, without count these 4 cargo ships, the need of the purchase seems not a real need. These 523 cover multiple roles, but I think Russia would have enough dry cargo and armament transport ships to this operation without a purchase:

    14165 tons Yauza Project 550 http://fleetphoto.ru/ship/20520/ (Also in Syria now)

    7230 tons Yamal Project 596P http://fleetphoto.ru/ship/17555/
    6300 tons Akademik Kovalev Project 20180/20181 http://fleetphoto.ru/ship/42639/
    4473 tons Daugaba Project 1791 http://fleetphoto.ru/ship/33930/
    3947 tons Pechora Project 740 http://fleetphoto.ru/ship/14386/
    1985 tons VTR-79 Project 20360 http://fleetphoto.ru/ship/3205/
    1985 tons Viktor Cherokov Project 20360 http://fleetphoto.ru/ship/60772/
    1915 tons Yrghiz Project 572 http://fleetphoto.ru/ship/42760/
    1915 tons Bira Project 572 http://fleetphoto.ru/ship/716/
    1243 tons VTR-139 Project 1807 modified to armament transport ship  http://fleetphoto.ru/ship/35262/
    1192 tons VTR-140 Project 773 modified to dry-cargo ship http://fleetphoto.ru/ship/26719/

    6300 tons Akademik Makeev Project 20180/20181 http://fleetphoto.ru/ship/59962/ (Under construction, expected by 2018)
    2500 tons ?????? Project 20360 http://russianships.info/eng/support/project_20360.htm (Under construction expected by 2019)
    2500 tons ?????? Project 20360 http://russianships.info/eng/support/project_20360.htm (Under construction expected by 2020)

    6000 tons Ivan Gren Project 11711 http://fleetphoto.ru/ship/25277/ Landing ship, combat ship, not auxiliary (Under construction, expected by 2017)
    6000 tons Pyotr Morgunov Project 11711 http://fleetphoto.ru/ship/59957/ Landing ship, combat ship, not auxiliary (Under construction, expected by 2018)

    Ships marked with the same color, different of black, are of almost the same size.

    Some questions used by previous commenters to justify the purchase that in fact mean bigger critizism to Russian Navy than mine:

    1.- How many classic cargo ships Ru navy have in that 523 au ships? And how many of them could be taken from their daily missions and be sent to Syria for years? Who will do their job during this Syrian campain? How many of them are big enought to be usefull in supplying Syria mission?

    The previous list and some detail about ships in bad state explained later answer this question in the refered to the ships over 1000 tons. Also it would be possible to include in the list one of the ships captured to Ukraine, but I did not. This one:

    4012 tons Konstantin Olshanskiy Project 775 http://fleetphoto.ru/ship/4752/ Landing ship, combat ship, not auxiliary

    There are 34 ships more under 1000 tons in the Russian Navy, including both the combat fleet (310 ships) and auxiliary fleet (523 ships), but without include the Coast Guard fleet and other non military gubernmental ships.

    In the 525 there are

    2.- Are you aware that Russia have to supply not only its forces in Syria, but SAA as well?

    Obviously yes. Russia is doing it, not? Is doing it with the group of ships deployed to Syria (60 ships deployed, 23 of them auxiliary, plus some temporary participations) that includes a good amount of amphibious landing ships and these 4 cargo ships purchased for the campaign.

    The supplying proces of the Russian forces and Syria would not be damaged just replacing these 4 purchased ships by other ships not deployed in Syria until now that are cited in the previous lists.

    3.- It has been an inappropriate use of amphibious landing ships in Syria?

    No. Amphibious landing ships as military concept are sea transport ships with some additional armament and with the capability of amphibious landing, to use when there are not proper infrastructure for landing. But of course these ships are not to be used only on amphibious landing operations. These ships are combat transport ships that can be used in every operation of military sea transport in contested areas. This is a fairly proper use.

    While I included not the landing amphibious ships deployed to Syria, I included the amphibious landing ships under construction to show properly the future sea transport capabilty of the Russian Navy.

    4.- It has been here a problem of lack of capacity in the auxiliary fleet of the Russian Navy to justify the purchase of these 4 ships?

    No. Obviously looking at the list the available capability was superior to the purchased capability. The Russian Navy has today, and also had in 2015 the necessary to afford a campaign like this of Syria.

    If the UK was in need of purchasing external ships for the campaign in the Falkland Island, it proves not that this was good or bad, it only proves that the UK Navy is less capable than the Russian Navy. And more taking into account the difference of size of both campaigns.

    5.- It has been here a problem of bad state of the ships of the auxiliary fleet of the Russian Navy?

    No. In the previous list have been ruled out the ships looking in bad state. The ships included seem active at this point, despite to be veteran in some cases. But do not think I ruled out many ships looking in bad state. I only ruled out one, that is not an auxiliary ship:

    4012 tons Oslyabya Project 775 http://fleetphoto.ru/ship/17125/ Landing ship, combat ship, not auxiliary

    The situation is not like the people say. There are old ships, there are auxiliary ships waiting to be scrapped, but it affects not to the capability of the Russian Navy to develop an operation like this of Syria.

    6.- It makes sense the purchase of ships to keep and reserve the oldest ships of the auxiliary fleet of the Russian Navy for future operations and to wait until new ships be built?

    No. It not makes sense because of two reasons.

    First, because the oldest ships are to be used. If necessary, the same purchase would be possible in the future, when some of the current ships are totally exhausted, if new ships are not then available. Also in some years the ships that would be purchased would be more modern than the ships purchased now.

    Second, because in the future, the lack of ships for the role is not guaranted, looking at the ships under construction now. Some big ships are expected to come in the short term, and even some delay would not be critic. Plus, some additional ship can be ordered. As consequence, the need of a purchase like this in the future is not guaranted.

    7.- Why are not used and built ships like the Yauza of the Project 550?

    Basically because it is a giant ship, that must be used near its full capability to be economically competitive. It means giant loses in case of sinking.

    8.- Can Russia resale the ships recovering the money?

    Yes. Russia did not purchase these ships paying overprice.

    9.- Why this has been the weakest part of the whole campaign in Syria?

    Because it opens the door to all these boring negative mantras habitually used in relation with the Russian Navy. The Russian navy can make shut-up all them easily eliminationg these 4 purchased cargo ships from the campaign and replacing them with other own ships available.

    You know the best master Yoda lol1

    http://structure.mil.ru/management/info/request.htm?data(destination)=11014@egOrganization&data(destPosition)=11826823@SD_Position

    Here, tell them how stupid they are.
    avatar
    Militarov
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5364
    Points : 5409
    Join date : 2015-09-02
    Location : Serbia

    Re: Russian Navy: Status & News #4

    Post  Militarov on Sun Apr 09, 2017 11:36 am

    Isos wrote:
    I am not sure are you even aware how tiny this Syrian operation is on global scale. Silly tiny port Bar in Montenegro pulls though it more load in a month than Russians transported till this moment by both air and sea for all this time.

    Certain conflicts in last 3 decades engaged as much as 300 transport and tanker ships, scale of which was HUGE. And you are painting us here with "solidness" of operations? Go away seriously your statements are getting more retarded by each day.

    And yes, majority of auxilary ships are in sorry state, let alone fact majority of the designs are from 70s and 80s which were built with totally different idea than today. Half dry cargo, half tanker capable ocean going support ships and similar. Roll-on/roll-off ships of major size also basically do not exist and are crucial.

    Also "people like you", which people? People that like to look at things as they are? Educated people?

    Or people like you that make 5 posts a week:

    "I THINK RUSSIA SHOULD SEND TO SYRIA 50.000 TANKS AND MOABS TO SHOW HOW ***** WE ARE".

    What's the point for them to have auxilary ships in big numbers ? They have this "little base" in Syria and that's all. All the stuff they send there is more than enough, they are not building and army to rule all the Seas from Syria. For transporting Something between their onw fleets they have trains and cargo planes, maritime routes would be too much dangerous for them in case of a war. Even Houtis manage to destroy one of them ...

    France has Mistral class but yet they used Russian Antonov for shiping military equipement in all their op.

    I never claimed anything of a sort, i think you missunderstood here something. I am saying that people are overblowing Syrian Express scale.

    When its regarding number of auxilary ships, Russia would need alot more, due to fact its... well.. huge. Railroads are very easily disrupted, landlines with Far East as you know are washed basically every spring. From pure standpoint of logistics RuNAV would need more transport and support ships than US navy, which is not the case.

    Aerial transport is fast, but very expencive compared to naval transport, many times more expencive and only fraction of required load is being transported that way for the most part. Especially due to fact many things literally cant be transported by air even with biggest aircraft there are.
    avatar
    eehnie
    Lieutenant Colonel
    Lieutenant Colonel

    Posts : 936
    Points : 961
    Join date : 2015-05-13

    Re: Russian Navy: Status & News #4

    Post  eehnie on Sun Apr 09, 2017 11:43 am

    Militarov wrote:
    eehnie wrote:I have been the first critic, but where there is some reason to be critic, I will not agree with unfair critics about the lack of capacity or the bad state of the fleet of auxiliary ships of the Russian Navy, and less from people with a proved wrong trajectory here, like this Militarov.

    If it was not clear enough, the best to prove what I'm saying and rule out some habitual negative mantras, is to expand the list posted before with more ships available for the Russian Navy. And also to include the ships under construction today looking at the future capability of the Russian Navy fleet.

    As said, surely the weakest part of the entire Russian operation in Syria has been the purchase of 4 cargo ships:

    9132 tons Dvinitsa-50 http://www.kchf.ru/ship/vspomog/dvinitsa50.htm
    7250 tons Vologda-50 http://www.kchf.ru/ship/vspomog/vologda50.htm
    4509 tons Kyzyl-60 http://www.kchf.ru/ship/vspomog/kyzyl60.htm
    2099 tons Kazan-60 http://www.kchf.ru/ship/vspomog/kazan60.htm

    As said, I think it was not necessary for a relatively small operation like this of Syria. With 523 auxilary ships today for many roles, without count these 4 cargo ships, the need of the purchase seems not a real need. These 523 cover multiple roles, but I think Russia would have enough dry cargo and armament transport ships to this operation without a purchase:

    14165 tons Yauza Project 550 http://fleetphoto.ru/ship/20520/ (Also in Syria now)

    7230 tons Yamal Project 596P http://fleetphoto.ru/ship/17555/
    6300 tons Akademik Kovalev Project 20180/20181 http://fleetphoto.ru/ship/42639/
    4473 tons Daugaba Project 1791 http://fleetphoto.ru/ship/33930/
    3947 tons Pechora Project 740 http://fleetphoto.ru/ship/14386/
    1985 tons VTR-79 Project 20360 http://fleetphoto.ru/ship/3205/
    1985 tons Viktor Cherokov Project 20360 http://fleetphoto.ru/ship/60772/
    1915 tons Yrghiz Project 572 http://fleetphoto.ru/ship/42760/
    1915 tons Bira Project 572 http://fleetphoto.ru/ship/716/
    1243 tons VTR-139 Project 1807 modified to armament transport ship http://fleetphoto.ru/ship/35262/
    1192 tons VTR-140 Project 773 modified to dry-cargo ship http://fleetphoto.ru/ship/26719/

    6300 tons Akademik Makeev Project 20180/20181 http://fleetphoto.ru/ship/59962/ (Under construction, expected by 2018)
    2500 tons ?????? Project 20360 http://russianships.info/eng/support/project_20360.htm (Under construction expected by 2019)
    2500 tons ?????? Project 20360 http://russianships.info/eng/support/project_20360.htm (Under construction expected by 2020)

    6000 tons Ivan Gren Project 11711 http://fleetphoto.ru/ship/25277/ Landing ship, combat ship, not auxiliary (Under construction, expected by 2017)
    6000 tons Pyotr Morgunov Project 11711 http://fleetphoto.ru/ship/59957/ Landing ship, combat ship, not auxiliary (Under construction, expected by 2018)
    4012 tons Konstantin Olshanskiy Project 775 http://fleetphoto.ru/ship/4752/ Landing ship, combat ship, not auxiliary (Captured to Ukaine, potential introduction)
    4012 tons Oslyabya Project 775 http://fleetphoto.ru/ship/17125/ Landing ship, combat ship, not auxiliary (To be repaired)

    Ships marked with the same color, different of black, are of almost the same size.

    Some questions used by previous commenters to justify the purchase that in fact mean bigger critizism to Russian Navy than mine:

    1.- How many classic cargo ships Ru navy have in that 523 au ships? And how many of them could be taken from their daily missions and be sent to Syria for years? Who will do their job during this Syrian campain? How many of them are big enought to be usefull in supplying Syria mission?

    The previous list and some detail about ships in bad state explained later answer this question in the refered to the ships over 1000 tons. Also it would be possible to include in the list one of the ships captured to Ukraine, but I did not. This one:

    4012 tons Konstantin Olshanskiy Project 775 http://fleetphoto.ru/ship/4752/ Landing ship, combat ship, not auxiliary (Captured to Ukraine, potential introduction)

    There are 34 ships more under 1000 tons in the Russian Navy, including both the combat fleet (310 ships) and auxiliary fleet (523 ships), but without include the Coast Guard fleet and other non military gubernmental ships.

    In the 525 there are

    2.- Are you aware that Russia have to supply not only its forces in Syria, but SAA as well?

    Obviously yes. Russia is doing it, not? Is doing it with the group of ships deployed to Syria (60 ships deployed, 23 of them auxiliary, plus some temporary participations) that includes a good amount of amphibious landing ships and these 4 cargo ships purchased for the campaign.

    The supplying proces of the Russian forces and Syria would not be damaged just replacing these 4 purchased ships by other ships not deployed in Syria until now that are cited in the previous lists.

    3.- It has been an inappropriate use of amphibious landing ships in Syria?

    No. Amphibious landing ships as military concept are sea transport ships with some additional armament and with the capability of amphibious landing, to use when there are not proper infrastructure for landing. But of course these ships are not to be used only on amphibious landing operations. These ships are combat transport ships that can be used in every operation of military sea transport in contested areas. This is a fairly proper use.

    While I included not the landing amphibious ships deployed to Syria, I included the amphibious landing ships under construction to show properly the future sea transport capabilty of the Russian Navy.

    4.- It has been here a problem of lack of capacity in the auxiliary fleet of the Russian Navy to justify the purchase of these 4 ships?

    No. Obviously looking at the list the available capability was superior to the purchased capability. The Russian Navy has today, and also had in 2015 the necessary to afford a campaign like this of Syria.

    If the UK was in need of purchasing external ships for the campaign in the Falkland Island, it proves not that this was good or bad, it only proves that the UK Navy is less capable than the Russian Navy. And more taking into account the difference of size of both campaigns.

    5.- It has been here a problem of bad state of the ships of the auxiliary fleet of the Russian Navy?

    No. In the previous list have been ruled out the ships looking in bad state. The ships included seem active at this point, despite to be veteran in some cases. But do not think I ruled out many ships looking in bad state. I only ruled out one, that is not an auxiliary ship:

    4012 tons Oslyabya Project 775 http://fleetphoto.ru/ship/17125/ Landing ship, combat ship, not auxiliary (To be repaired)

    The situation is not like the people say. There are old ships, there are auxiliary ships waiting to be scrapped, but it affects not to the capability of the Russian Navy to develop an operation like this of Syria.

    6.- It makes sense the purchase of ships to keep and reserve the oldest ships of the auxiliary fleet of the Russian Navy for future operations and to wait until new ships be built?

    No. It not makes sense because of two reasons.

    First, because the oldest ships are to be used. If necessary, the same purchase would be possible in the future, when some of the current ships are totally exhausted, if new ships are not then available. Also in some years the ships that would be purchased would be more modern than the ships purchased now.

    Second, because in the future, the lack of ships for the role is not guaranted, looking at the ships under construction now. Some big ships are expected to come in the short term, and even some delay would not be critic. Plus, some additional ship can be ordered. As consequence, the need of a purchase like this in the future is not guaranted.

    7.- Why are not used and built ships like the Yauza of the Project 550?

    Basically because it is a giant ship, that must be used near its full capability to be economically competitive. It means giant loses in case of sinking.

    8.- Can Russia resale the ships recovering the money?

    Yes. Russia did not purchase these ships paying overprice.

    9.- Why this has been the weakest part of the whole campaign in Syria?

    Because it opens the door to all these boring negative mantras habitually used in relation with the Russian Navy. The Russian navy can make shut-up all them easily eliminationg these 4 purchased cargo ships from the campaign and replacing them with other own ships available. The people should be recognizing the hability of the Russian Navy of affording a whole operation like this by its own means instead of having to support all this critizism about their overall capabilities. This has been a little unnecessary mistake that helps to hidde the real merit of the Russian Navy.

    You know the best master Yoda lol1

    http://structure.mil.ru/management/info/request.htm?data(destination)=11014@egOrganization&data(destPosition)=11826823@SD_Position

    Here, tell them how stupid they are.

    The people should be recognizing the hability of the Russian Navy of affording a whole operation like this by its own means instead of having to support all this critizism about their overall capabilities. This has been a little unnecessary mistake that helps to hidde the real merit of the Russian Navy.

    Are you able to recognize that the Russian Navy has been able to afford this operation by its own means, whitout external help? Let us to see if you do it.

    JohninMK
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3817
    Points : 3872
    Join date : 2015-06-16
    Location : England

    Re: Russian Navy: Status & News #4

    Post  JohninMK on Sat Apr 15, 2017 2:06 pm

    Couple of Baltic Fleet corvettes heading south on Friday in lovely weather down the English Channel. Probably on a visit to the Black Sea, via Syria no doubt.

    The Steregushchiy-class corvettes, Soobrazitelny and Boiky, were joined later in the afternoon by a Russian support tanker and an ocean-going tug.




    JohninMK
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3817
    Points : 3872
    Join date : 2015-06-16
    Location : England

    Re: Russian Navy: Status & News #4

    Post  JohninMK on Sun Apr 16, 2017 2:22 pm

    Not sure if this was posted but an amazing piece of filming by a RuN crew who clearly had no idea of the seriousness of the disaster that unfolded in front of them. Quite how the cargo ship could be held responsible is beyond me, they couldn't see the Coastguard ship from their bridge once it was only 1-200m in front of them.

    On 17 August 2016, Turkish Coast Guard vessel TCSG-25 collided with the Cook Island flag and Turkish owned bulk carrier M/V Tolunay, near the southern entrance of Bosphorus.

    TCSG-25 was tasked to escort the Russian Natya class mine hunter Valentin Pikul which was returning from her Syrian deployment. The coast guard boat capsized after the collision.  Lieutenant Ali Rıza Yücel, Petty Officers Yavuz Gökhan Şahin, Bülent Demirkaya and rating Sinan Göktaş died while the remaining 3 crew members were rescued.

    The captain of M/V Tolunay, Abdullah Hamadı and 2 members of the crew are currently on trial. They are charged with causing death and injury through negligence. The prosecution asks for imprisonment from 4.5 years to 22.5 years.

    There is a video taken by a sailor on board of the Russian mine sweeper showing the accident. TCSG-25 had the agility and the speed to sprint and move away from the merchant ship.




    https://turkishnavy.net/

    JohninMK
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3817
    Points : 3872
    Join date : 2015-06-16
    Location : England

    Re: Russian Navy: Status & News #4

    Post  JohninMK on Sun Apr 16, 2017 6:05 pm

    Interesting deployment, wondered where they were going. Bet they didn't expect the current situation in NK when this trip was planned!

    Already Happened‏ @M3t4_tr0n Apr 11

    Russian guided-missile cruiser Varyag and RFS Pechenga have arrived at Port of Busan, South Korea today



    avatar
    George1
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 10114
    Points : 10608
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    Re: Russian Navy: Status & News #4

    Post  George1 on Fri Apr 21, 2017 8:28 am

    KALININGRAD, April 20. /TASS/. The Boiky and Soobrazitelny corvettes of the Russian Baltic Fleet and convoy vessels have passed through the English Channel, Roman Martov, a spokesman for the Blatic Fleet told TASS.

    More:
    http://tass.com/defense/942355


    _________________
    "There's no smoke without fire.", Georgy Zhukov

    avatar
    PapaDragon
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 4125
    Points : 4235
    Join date : 2015-04-26
    Location : Fort Evil, Serbia

    Re: Russian Navy: Status & News #4

    Post  PapaDragon on Fri Apr 21, 2017 11:49 am


    Rescue vessel project 23700 Voevoda (Duke) laid down in Yantar shipyard in Kaliningrad

    https://sdelanounas.ru/blogs/92679/

    avatar
    PapaDragon
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 4125
    Points : 4235
    Join date : 2015-04-26
    Location : Fort Evil, Serbia

    Re: Russian Navy: Status & News #4

    Post  PapaDragon on Fri Apr 21, 2017 4:03 pm


    This 23700 rescue vessel is actually quite big. Length: 111m, width 24m. It's wide enough to park 2 helicopters side-by-side on the deck.

    We know that RU Navy is looking for replacement for Ropucha class landing ships and this thing could be used as basis for something similar to Rotterdam class landing ship (length: 166m, width: 27m)

    It is shorter than Rotterdam of course but it could be a start. Width here is the big issue in order to accommodate 2 helicopters next to each other.

    Does it make sense or am just talking crap here?

    avatar
    AlfaT8
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1230
    Points : 1239
    Join date : 2013-02-01

    Re: Russian Navy: Status & News #4

    Post  AlfaT8 on Sat Apr 22, 2017 8:23 pm

    Hey guys, i have been wondering, has there been any talk of a successor to the Slava-class cruiser??
    avatar
    PapaDragon
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 4125
    Points : 4235
    Join date : 2015-04-26
    Location : Fort Evil, Serbia

    Re: Russian Navy: Status & News #4

    Post  PapaDragon on Sat Apr 22, 2017 10:30 pm

    AlfaT8 wrote:Hey guys, i have been wondering, has there been any talk of a successor to the Slava-class cruiser??

    Lider destroyer. Same length, same mission type.
    avatar
    AlfaT8
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1230
    Points : 1239
    Join date : 2013-02-01

    Re: Russian Navy: Status & News #4

    Post  AlfaT8 on Sat Apr 22, 2017 10:56 pm

    PapaDragon wrote:
    AlfaT8 wrote:Hey guys, i have been wondering, has there been any talk of a successor to the Slava-class cruiser??

    Lider destroyer. Same length, same mission type.

    Really, same mission type?
    The Slava seems more like a pure missile carrier, while the Kirov and Lider seem more like capital ships, that said the Lider should do fine.

    avatar
    Isos
    Lieutenant
    Lieutenant

    Posts : 525
    Points : 529
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Re: Russian Navy: Status & News #4

    Post  Isos on Sun Apr 23, 2017 6:27 am

    AlfaT8 wrote:
    PapaDragon wrote:
    AlfaT8 wrote:Hey guys, i have been wondering, has there been any talk of a successor to the Slava-class cruiser??

    Lider destroyer. Same length, same mission type.

    Really, same mission type?
    The Slava seems more like a pure missile carrier, while the Kirov and Lider seem more like capital ships, that said the Lider should do fine.


    Projet 21956 is more likely to replace slava. Lider is on pair with Kirovs. Even USSR couldn't affoard lot of Kirov that's why they build Slavas 4Kirovs for 10 slavas planned. Russia will do the same few Lider with lot of Project 21956 and Gorshkov which are replacing Sovrommenys. So maybe 4 lider for 10 21956 + 20 gorshkovs + 20 Steregoutchy replacing the old underarmed Soviet light frigates and lot of smaller corvettes.

    But the project 21956 is already outdated as it's planned with S-300 while their is the S-400 available, just 16 UKSK while their is space for at least 32, an old mast compare to that of gorshko for exemple, lack of Paket-Nk. The main danger for that project is that they try to make it at the lvl of kirovs and they finish with a superarmed costly destroyer like they always do when they design new versions (Cf Yassen class and their huge prices).
    avatar
    PapaDragon
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 4125
    Points : 4235
    Join date : 2015-04-26
    Location : Fort Evil, Serbia

    Re: Russian Navy: Status & News #4

    Post  PapaDragon on Sun Apr 23, 2017 8:36 am


    I think they will keep it simple:

    Lider as replacement for Kirov's and Slava's and Gorshkov variants for Udaloi and Sovremenni

    2 instead of 4
    avatar
    Isos
    Lieutenant
    Lieutenant

    Posts : 525
    Points : 529
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Re: Russian Navy: Status & News #4

    Post  Isos on Sun Apr 23, 2017 9:01 am

    PapaDragon wrote:
    I think they will keep it simple:

    Lider as replacement for Kirov's and Slava's and Gorshkov variants for Udaloi and Sovremenni

    2 instead of 4

    It's doubtfull that a nuclear russian supercruiser replace a Slava which was designed because of the high cost of the soviet Kirov supercruiser. They already build almost ten classes of corvettes to save cost. They will probably do the same with big ships. The big advantage is that all of these ships can have the same weapons and systems because of standartization so having just one, two or ten design is not that important as the work on every ship will be the same.

    Remember that they needed 10 Slavas and not just the 3 they have so if they want a true big navy they wil need the 12 Lider they already wish which is impossible for them to have. Even if they build them they won't have enough for maintaining them. So it's better one per fleet and add Project 21956.
    avatar
    PapaDragon
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 4125
    Points : 4235
    Join date : 2015-04-26
    Location : Fort Evil, Serbia

    Re: Russian Navy: Status & News #4

    Post  PapaDragon on Sun Apr 23, 2017 10:04 am


    Lider will not be Kirov equivalent. They already went on record and said it will not be larger than Slava class. They are not building a supercruiser, just a destroyer.

    Project 21956 is vaporware. Adding another class of ships to building schedule already strained beyond breaking point would be idiotic. Whatever they would want to use this class for can be covered by enlarged Gorshkov.
    avatar
    Benya
    Senior Sergeant
    Senior Sergeant

    Posts : 288
    Points : 292
    Join date : 2016-06-05
    Location : Budapest, Hungary

    Re: Russian Navy: Status & News #4

    Post  Benya on Sun Apr 23, 2017 10:49 am

    Isos wrote:
    AlfaT8 wrote:
    PapaDragon wrote:
    AlfaT8 wrote:Hey guys, i have been wondering, has there been any talk of a successor to the Slava-class cruiser??

    Lider destroyer. Same length, same mission type.

    Really, same mission type?
    The Slava seems more like a pure missile carrier, while the Kirov and Lider seem more like capital ships, that said the Lider should do fine.


    Projet 21956 is more likely to replace slava. Lider is on pair with Kirovs. Even USSR couldn't affoard lot of Kirov that's why they build Slavas 4Kirovs for 10 slavas planned. Russia will do the same few Lider with lot of Project 21956 and Gorshkov which are replacing Sovrommenys. So maybe 4 lider for 10 21956 + 20 gorshkovs + 20 Steregoutchy replacing the old underarmed Soviet light frigates and lot of smaller corvettes.

    But the project 21956 is already outdated as it's planned with S-300 while their is the S-400 available, just 16 UKSK while their is space for at least 32, an old mast compare to that of gorshko for exemple, lack of Paket-Nk. The main danger for that project is that they try to make it at the lvl of kirovs and they finish with a superarmed costly destroyer like they always do when they design new versions (Cf Yassen class and their huge prices).

    Actually, 12 Lider-class cruisers are planned (don't get me wrong, these vessels are too big to be classified as destroyers), 6 for the two major fleets (Northern and Pacific)

    In long terms, Lider can replace cruisers of both current Russian Navy cruiser classes (Slava and Kirov respectively), and I'm sure that by 2040, this goal could be achieved with ease.

    Project 21956 – if it is as outdated as you say – could be a good basis of a new destroyer class, that could replace both Udaloy and Sovremenniy-class destroyers

    Gorshkovs and Steregushchiy-class corvettes on the other hand, are mainly for littoral operations I think, protecting Russia's own waters, so they would be mainly supplied to the other two smaller fleets (the Baltic and Black Sea Fleets).

    Anyway, let's sum this up, here is what I think that how future surface combatants of the Russian Navy should be distributed between the fleets:

    1.) Baltic Fleet

    - 6 Gorshkov frigates, 6-8 Steregushchiy corvettes for seagoing/littoral operations in the Baltic Sea

    2.) Northern Fleet

    - 6 Lider cruisers and 8-10 new destroyers for oceangoing/overseas operations in the Northern Seas and the Atlantic Ocean

    - 6 Gorshkov frigates, 4-6 Derzkiy and 8-10 Karakurt-class corvettes for seagoing/littoral operations in the Barents, Kara and Laptev Seas

    3.) Black Sea Fleet

    - 3-4 new destroyers, 6 Grigorovich frigates for operations in the Black/Mediterranean Seas

    - 6-8 Karakurt corvettes to patrol the littoral areas of southern Russia

    4.) Pacific Fleet

    - 6 Lider cruisers and 8-10 new destroyers for oceangoing operations in the Pacific Ocean

    - 6 Gorshkov frigates, 4-6 Steregushchiy and maybe some more other corvettes to protect the Sea of Okhotsk, the East Siberian Sea and the Kamchatka peninsula
    avatar
    AlfaT8
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1230
    Points : 1239
    Join date : 2013-02-01

    Re: Russian Navy: Status & News #4

    Post  AlfaT8 on Sun Apr 23, 2017 4:18 pm

    Hmmm... i simply thought that priority should be given to Lider-class, while Frigates, Corvettes and subs can take care of the rest, it looks like there may be a need for a lesser Lider in the future, although i haven't seen any proposed plans for such.

    I thought the Gorshkov could assume the role, but it lacks the air-defense assets to do so (32 vs slava's 64 missiles), perhaps the future Gorshkov-M?

    Dennis_3003
    Private
    Private

    Posts : 3
    Points : 3
    Join date : 2016-12-05

    Re: Russian Navy: Status & News #4

    Post  Dennis_3003 Yesterday at 12:04 am

    You need to keep in mind that Seregi Shoigou, the defence minister, has stated that frigates similar to the Gorshkov will be the main backbone of the fleet.

    http://tass.com/defense/942511
    avatar
    AlfaT8
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1230
    Points : 1239
    Join date : 2013-02-01

    Re: Russian Navy: Status & News #4

    Post  AlfaT8 Yesterday at 2:06 pm

    Dennis_3003 wrote:You need to keep in mind that Seregi Shoigou, the defence minister, has stated that frigates similar to the Gorshkov will be the main backbone of the fleet.

    http://tass.com/defense/942511

    A wise decision, although until they get the issues with the Frigates resolved, the Corvettes will be the main backbone.

    Sponsored content

    Re: Russian Navy: Status & News #4

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Tue Apr 25, 2017 4:22 pm