Russian Navy: Status & News #4

verkhoturye51 wrote:Here come arguments.

Price of Kirov and Lider are about the same, i.e. about 1 bn (and not 0,5 bn like I previously claimed). Source: https://russiandefpolicy.blog/2015/07/21/for-nakhimovs-price/

Old cruiser vs new destroyer, who wins: http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/russias-super-battlecruiser-kirov-vs-americas-stealth-19211

Finally: yes, Kirovs are very capable ships for fight against US carrier strike groups even today, but Liders are even better. So after modernising Pyotr and Nakhimov, it's better to leave Ushakov and Lazarev to rust in peace, rather than risking danger starting their nuclear reactors, that are in bad shape. See also: https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/ddg-newcon-design.htm

walle83 wrote:Lider or Kirov...all just seems like a wet dream for Russia today. Do people seriusly think that anything of this will be completed by 2025-2030? Okey the Admiral Nakhimov probably will be finshed by 2020 or so but after that....
It takes Russia years to finish a frigate...some of the larger corvettes has taken over 10 years to get ready. To think that a new large nuclear cruiser or a heavy aircraft carrier could be built by the late 2020 is wishing alot.

No what Russia should be doing is to concentrate on building a Green-water navy with smaller frigates and corvettes and keep on building ssbn:s for its strategic value. SSN:s could just be replaced by SSK:s with cruise missiles. How many Kilos and Ladas can u get for a price of one Yasen? Im not saying that all Akulas and Sierras should be scrapped right away, but to keep spending huge amount of money on 2-4 new nuclear submarines makes no sense.

verkhoturye51 wrote:Liders won't be finished in 2020s for a simple reasons, as they're not a priority in the navy.

The most acute need right now are LTS ships, which are the oldest in the navy. So after finishing Ivan Gren class and Priboy class by 2026, Northern shipyard is planning to start with 12 Liders production. The first should be done in 2030 - perhaps a bit optimistic, but timelines today are NOT such problem as in the past. Russian shipbuilding industry has been through the worst and is launching 24.000 ton boats again. Don't forget that delays happen in the UK with their new carriers or in Germany with their destroyers too. And the most expensive projects Yasen and Borei will be finished by then, so more funds will be available for surface ships.

The old ships are also on clear schedule, with Kuznetsov modernisation planned to take place 2018-2021, Nakhimov 2017-2021 and Pyotr 2020-2023.

Russsian navy clearly is and will remain, not only a blue water, but also world's no. 2 navy, despite current difficulties. The Chinese are decades away from patrolling along US coast with their submarines and sending their aircraft carrier formations on a journey comparable to Murmansk - Tartus, let alone UK or France, which are dangerous only in combination with US ships.

verkhoturye51 wrote:The most pessimistic projections suggest that Chinese navy will surpass Russian around year 2030. Right now China is still in the phase of modernization and not expansion. The number of vessels and submarines is the same since Cold war.

China is decades away from being technologically superior to Russia, which dominates certain areas even above US navy (supersonic cruise missiles, big part of submarine related tech). The recent leap forward is only due to Russian willingness to sell them some advanced tech after western sanctions. But the know how remains in Russian universities and is the only long term guarranty of tech advance.

Aircraft carriers don't matter. Russian naval strategy emphasizes submarines instead and that's fine for their defensive purposes and their missiles can disable Chinese invasion with 5 or 10 aircraft carriers. So actually is more like comparing apples and pears.

SeigSoloyvov wrote:Large surface ships aren't going away EVER. Missiles only fill one small area of a much bigger picture

A navy needs large hulls to patrol in the far ocean zone away from borders.

It needs aircraft carriers to conduct missions where it has no access to airbases.

It needs Helio Carriers to support different types of operations.

If you think "missiles" is the answer to everything, that just deluded thinking.

PapaDragon wrote:
Half the Chinese borders are on the coast and 80% of their population live in coastal region to say nothing of the fact that practically their entire trade is dependent on sea lanes

I am actually surprised they lasted this long without proper Navy but they are fixing it now

Russia is land power, population is deep inland, trade and resources are as well and, Arctic aside, coast is negligible in size

Russian Navy is there to service and cover submarine fleet

As long as submarines are kept in good numbers and in good condition they are sitting pretty

Big_Gazza wrote:

SeigSoloyvov wrote:Large surface ships aren't going away EVER. Missiles only fill one small area of a much bigger picture

A navy needs large hulls to patrol in the far ocean zone away from borders.

It needs aircraft carriers to conduct missions where it has no access to airbases.

It needs Helio Carriers to support different types of operations.

If you think "missiles" is the answer to everything, that just deluded thinking.

Spoken like a true Murican, where a navy is intended as a power projection force and is invariably to be used to assert your will over distant nations and inflict aggression.

Russian navy is DEFENSIVE and as such, doesn't need to do those things.  Area denial is their modus operandi, and the USN knows precisely how useful their navy will be when its flat-tops are aflame and no longer able to launch or recover aircraft.  Sink a US carrier or burn her to the waterline and the US loses.  Hypersonic weapons are a deadly threat to USN carriers, and the brass knows that their Aegis and current defenses are inadequate, while Sci-Fi weapons like lasers and railguns are a useless dead-end.

China needs a large navy as they will need to be able to assert control of the Asian Pacific Rim in the event of war, so they are tooling up bigly, but they are also aware that hypersonics are the big game changer, and in their corner of the world it will be land-based stand-off weapons that will tip the balance in their favour.  The time will come when the idea of the US projecting power to the West Pacific will be nothing short of suicidal, and the USN brass knows it.

SeigSoloyvov wrote:

Big_Gazza wrote:

SeigSoloyvov wrote:Large surface ships aren't going away EVER. Missiles only fill one small area of a much bigger picture

A navy needs large hulls to patrol in the far ocean zone away from borders.

It needs aircraft carriers to conduct missions where it has no access to airbases.

It needs Helio Carriers to support different types of operations.

If you think "missiles" is the answer to everything, that just deluded thinking.

Spoken like a true Murican, where a navy is intended as a power projection force and is invariably to be used to assert your will over distant nations and inflict aggression.

Russian navy is DEFENSIVE and as such, doesn't need to do those things.  Area denial is their modus operandi, and the USN knows precisely how useful their navy will be when its flat-tops are aflame and no longer able to launch or recover aircraft.  Sink a US carrier or burn her to the waterline and the US loses.  Hypersonic weapons are a deadly threat to USN carriers, and the brass knows that their Aegis and current defenses are inadequate, while Sci-Fi weapons like lasers and railguns are a useless dead-end.

China needs a large navy as they will need to be able to assert control of the Asian Pacific Rim in the event of war, so they are tooling up bigly, but they are also aware that hypersonics are the big game changer, and in their corner of the world it will be land-based stand-off weapons that will tip the balance in their favour.  The time will come when the idea of the US projecting power to the West Pacific will be nothing short of suicidal, and the USN brass knows it.

Lawls you realize the Russians plan to build those ships?.

Your statement acts like the Russians have no plans to build such vessels, guess what bud they DO.

Your entire point is made entirely pointless by the Russians themselves, I don't even need to argue with you.

This has nothing to do with being "murican" this is standard naval practice, that is how a navy works.

That is the navy Russia wants, They want Cruisers, DD's, Amp ships, Carriers.

so don't sit there and talk like they don't that is just ignoring facts.

SeigSoloyvov wrote:
Lawls you realize the Russians plan to build those ships?.

Your statement acts like the Russians have no plans to build such vessels, guess what bud they DO.

Your entire point is made entirely pointless by the Russians themselves, I don't even need to argue with you.

This has nothing to do with being "murican" this is standard naval practice, that is how a navy works.

That is the navy Russia wants, They want Cruisers, DD's, Amp ships, Carriers.

so don't sit there and talk like they don't that is just ignoring facts.