Russian Navy: Status & News #4

70-75 is the total number of submarines incl. SSBNs. 63 active/being modernized + some non active

Now I agree that the expression hunter-killer wasn't in place, these are Akula SSNs.

"Yeah the us better start scrapping thier navy today, becouse its no use to them at all.....
10.000 missiles? What on earth would Russia (or anybody else) use for launch platforms for all that missiles by 2030? 30 Tu-22Ms and ~100 MiG-31 going back and forwards 50 times?"

That´s exactly the advantage of planes over ships. The can go back and forward very fast. That´s why the russian navy had 400+ missile carriers in the 80´s. They could move around very fast.

That´s exactly the advantage of planes over ships. The can go back and forward very fast. That´s why the russian navy had 400+ missile carriers in the 80´s. They could move around very fast.

That's why they need a new medium bomber in the class of tu-22 with at least a combat radius of 4000 km, a reduced rcs and a big radar but keeping it cheaper than new tu-22M and tu-160 variants.

Isos wrote:

That´s exactly the advantage of planes over ships. The can go back and forward very fast. That´s why the russian navy had 400+ missile carriers in the 80´s. They could move around very fast.

That's why they need a new medium bomber in the class of tu-22 with at least a combat radius of 4000 km, a reduced rcs and a big radar but keeping it cheaper than new tu-22M and tu-160 variants.

Such a plane would cost some 300M$ apiece. There is no "bablo"! Moreover, there is no even such a project, and there is NO NEED for such a plane. SU-34 will do most of the job, while TU-22M3M Backfire C will be for long distance operative punch for 20 years to come, after modernisation of some 50 units. TU-22 plain - NATO "Blinder" is already dead for at least 30 years!

When each MiG-31 can kill a ship, why do you need more than 3 or 4 to attack a naval group?

What US or NATO naval force would continue its mission after losing 4 ships to four missiles?

Knowing in the time it takes to sail within attack range of Russia that they could launch several dozen missiles easily at your naval group... are you going to approach with landing ships?

With aircraft carriers to mount an air attack?

With just destroyers to attack with land attack cruise missiles?

A Mach 10 missile... they could put 100 on the nose of an Energyia rocket and launch them all at a Pacific fleet of ships... as they drop back into the atmosphere and slow down a ballistic shell could pop open and release these missiles at 50,000m flying at mach 15 to mach 20 and they could start up their rocket motors and fly maybe 2,500km to their targets...

There is no need for a large force of one trick ponies... having maybe 50-60 Tu-22M3Ms plus about 60 Tu-160M2s (including new and upgraded), plus maybe 40-50 upgraded MiG-31s and perhaps even 40-50 MiG-41s by 2030 and you have plenty of attack options... remember at mach 10 you don't need a swarm attack... the US or China can't even stop one, so 50 from MiG-31s, say 40 from MiG-41s, 200 from Tu-22M3Ms, and say a similar number from the Tu-160M2s means almost 500 ready to launch with platforms able to perform other roles as well...

But you can bet your ass they wont be fired at the Chinese fleet... they will be sinking US ships in the Arctic ocean forming part of their ABM system... and likely a few of those missiles will be disabling radar and SAM sites in Europe that are also part of that system... any spare ones will likely focus on any US carriers detected near the Russian landmass...

And that 500 launch platforms does not even include PAK DA, which being subsonic with a large internal weapon bay could probably carry a dozen missiles each... But lets be serious... they are not going to tie up all their large aircraft with just this system... MiG-31 and MiG-41s will be on interceptor alert mostly with perhaps a handful armed with Kinzhal, and the naval air arms Tu-22M3M will likely be the main user of this weapon, but as I said there is no need to launch hundreds of these missiles... you don't need a swarm attack with these missiles...

GarryB wrote: you don't need a swarm attack with these missiles...

Maybe not, but such a possibility elevates fear in the hearts of the USN brass into full-fledged terror ... If there is anything that will moderate the behavior of the seppos it is the specter of their much-vaunted Navy scattered, burning and sinking. Peace through overwhelming firepower, a favored Murican slogan, now turned against them for the benefit of the World.

I think they are much more terrorised by the possibility of one plane with one missile sinking one of their beloved ships.

Photos from Vladivostok

https://navy-korabel.livejournal.com/191007.html

VLADIVOSTOK, May 7. /TASS/. A group of Pacific Fleet ships is leaving Vladivostok on Monday for the Pacific Rim where it will perform a number of tasks, enter some foreign ports and take part in the Russian-Chinese drills "Maritime Cooperation 2018," spokesman for the Pacific Fleet, Captain 2nd rank Nikolai Voskresensky said.

More:
http://tass.com/defense/1003069

Hole wrote:"Yeah the us better start scrapping thier navy today, becouse its no use to them at all.....
10.000 missiles? What on earth would Russia (or anybody else) use for launch platforms for all that missiles by 2030? 30 Tu-22Ms and ~100 MiG-31 going back and forwards 50 times?"

That´s exactly the advantage of planes over ships. The can go back and forward very fast. That´s why the russian navy had 400+ missile carriers in the 80´s. They could move around very fast.

Yeah....and the enemy will also have 50 times to shoot down those aircrafts.

GarryB wrote:When each MiG-31 can kill a ship, why do you need more than 3 or 4 to attack a naval group?

What US or NATO naval force would continue its mission after losing 4 ships to four missiles?

Knowing in the time it takes to sail within attack range of Russia that they could launch several dozen missiles easily at your naval group... are you going to approach with landing ships?

With aircraft carriers to mount an air attack?

With just destroyers to attack with land attack cruise missiles?

A Mach 10 missile... they could put 100 on the nose of an Energyia rocket and launch them all at a Pacific fleet of ships... as they drop back into the atmosphere and slow down a ballistic shell could pop open and release these missiles at 50,000m flying at mach 15 to mach 20 and they could start up their rocket motors and fly maybe 2,500km to their targets...

There is no need for a large force of one trick ponies... having maybe 50-60 Tu-22M3Ms plus about 60 Tu-160M2s (including new and upgraded), plus maybe 40-50 upgraded MiG-31s and perhaps even 40-50 MiG-41s by 2030 and you have plenty of attack options... remember at mach 10 you don't need a swarm attack... the US or China can't even stop one, so 50 from MiG-31s, say 40 from MiG-41s, 200 from Tu-22M3Ms, and say a similar number from the Tu-160M2s means almost 500 ready to launch with platforms able to perform other roles as well...

But you can bet your ass they wont be fired at the Chinese fleet... they will be sinking US ships in the Arctic ocean forming part of their ABM system... and likely a few of those missiles will be disabling radar and SAM sites in Europe that are also part of that system... any spare ones will likely focus on any US carriers detected near the Russian landmass...

And that 500 launch platforms does not even include PAK DA, which being subsonic with a large internal weapon bay could probably carry a dozen missiles each... But lets be serious... they are not going to tie up all their large aircraft with just this system... MiG-31 and MiG-41s will be on interceptor alert mostly with perhaps a handful armed with Kinzhal, and the naval air arms Tu-22M3M will likely be the main user of this weapon, but as I said there is no need to launch hundreds of these missiles... you don't need a swarm attack with these missiles...

And what, the US and NATO would just sail their battlegroups against Russian mainland? They would not bombard Russian airfields and bases with hundreds of cruise missiles from submerged submarines, destroyers and air forces before that?
Energyia rockets, 60 Tu-160M2s, 40 MiG-41s, 60 upgraded Tu-22Ms? In 12 years? Yes that seems very realistic.

How?
Even propaganda outlet National Interest doesn´t believe in the possibility of attacking Russia with aircraft carriers.

Cruise missiles?
Good luck. 59 cruise missiles couldn´t even destroy one single syrian airfield. How many would they need for a country like Russia? 25.000? And that is without air defence or ECM destroying 90% of them.

And what, the US and NATO would just sail their battlegroups against Russian mainland? They would not bombard Russian airfields and bases with hundreds of cruise missiles from submerged submarines, destroyers and air forces before that?

You don't get it do you?

The Russian navy will have zero influence in WWIII except for their SLBMs from their SSBNs.

The all powerful US and entire western navies will have zero influence in WWIII except their SLBMs and SSBNs.

US carriers are OK for attacking some small nations but would be useless against Russia and are becoming useless against China now too.

Energyia rockets, 60 Tu-160M2s, 40 MiG-41s, 60 upgraded Tu-22Ms? In 12 years? Yes that seems very realistic.

They are reactivating a shuttle programme... which will require an Energyia type rocket.

They already have 15 Tu-160s which they plan to upgrade to M2 standard and they are producing 50 new Tu-160M2s in a factory that is also going to be making PAK DAs afterwards. Production for the MiG-41 is supposed to start in 2025, which would be less than 10 per year... and they have already upgraded one Tu-22M3M, so upgrading another 59 in 12 years is what... 5 upgrades per year...

Would be cheaper than 30 destroyers and 12 cruisers and 2 CVNs... much cheaper.

GarryB wrote:

And what, the US and NATO would just sail their battlegroups against Russian mainland? They would not bombard Russian airfields and bases with hundreds of cruise missiles from submerged submarines, destroyers and air forces before that?

You don't get it do you?

The Russian navy will have zero influence in WWIII except for their SLBMs from their SSBNs.

The all powerful US and entire western navies will have zero influence in WWIII except their SLBMs and SSBNs.

US carriers are OK for attacking some small nations but would be useless against Russia and are becoming useless against China now too.

Energyia rockets, 60 Tu-160M2s, 40 MiG-41s, 60 upgraded Tu-22Ms? In 12 years? Yes that seems very realistic.

They are reactivating a shuttle programme... which will require an Energyia type rocket.

They already have 15 Tu-160s which they plan to upgrade to M2 standard and they are producing 50 new Tu-160M2s in a factory that is also going to be making PAK DAs afterwards. Production for the MiG-41 is supposed to start in 2025, which would be less than 10 per year... and they have already upgraded one Tu-22M3M, so upgrading another 59 in 12 years is what... 5 upgrades per year...

Would be cheaper than 30 destroyers and 12 cruisers and 2 CVNs... much cheaper.

Oh im sorry i thought this part of the forum was for the Russian navy, but hey lets continue twist and turn everything around to make the Russians seem invincible no mather what.

Yes the have 15 Tu-160 in total today (how many are really fully activce is another thing) but u are talking about starting up a total production line of large strategic bombers again. Thats nothing u do in a day or two, or in a year or two. I would be suprised of they get the Tu-160M2 in full production in 5 years from now, even if they could start next years they have to build 4 bombers a year to reach 60 in 2030.

One thing I learned by following Russian defence plans (started in ~2006) is that almost nothing will be done within the first planned timetable. Basicly any project beyond two-three years will almost always be delayed, replaned, reprioritized or cancalled. If the say that a project will start production in 2025, i garantie you that will mean somewhere from 2027-2032, if ever.

walle83 wrote:....
Oh im sorry i thought this part of the forum was for the Russian navy, but hey lets continue twist and turn everything around to make the Russians seem invincible no mather what.
....

I am last person who buys into "Russia invincible" shtick but here you are doing the opposite: twisting and turning everything around to make USA look invincible in a war that will not happen (non-nuclear USA/Russia war).

And have you even bothered to just do simple counting? Even entire US Navy simply​ does not have enough slots for LACMs to effectively attack enemy like Russia and that is in a scenario where they load every single VLS cell with cruise missile and ignore everything else.

Also, you think Russian Navy both surface and submarines, airforce and rest of it will be sitting idle?

USA dumps everything it has on Russia in one volley. You honestly think everything will get through? It won't. And even if it could you really think that Russia would not notice that amount of warships piling up in the vicinity long in advance?

USA has a lot. But they don't have enough for this scenario.

Im not saying that US is almighty at all, but listening to sorten others members here Russia has nothing to worrie about from any other nation, just a few airforce units and they will sink 100 destroyers and 20 carriers. It gets rediciules.

My point has always been that Russia has lost alot of its naval power since the collapse of the Soviet union and that China has raisen to a real power in the last 15 years.
Some just seems to ignore this and find any and all reason to make Russia invincible No matter what.

Its like trying to convince a religios person why god does not excist. No matter what absolute fact u show them they still dont wont listen to reason.

walle83 wrote:Im not saying that US is almighty at all, but listening to sorten others members here Russia has nothing to worrie about from any other nation, just a few airforce units and they will sink 100 destroyers and 20 carriers. It gets rediciules.

My point has always been that Russia has lost alot of its naval power since the collapse of the Soviet union and that China has raisen to a real power in the last 15 years.
Some just seems to ignore this and find any and all reason to make Russia invincible No matter what.

Its like trying to convince a religios person why god does not excist. No matter what absolute fact u show them they still dont wont listen to reason.

They only need to destroy 3 or 4 carriers and all the US navy will go home. If they loose 4 carriers US won't risk to loose more of them because they have hundreds of bases around the world to defend specially against China in the pacific.

It's not WW2 where they could replace a carrier in matters of months.

Russian antiship missiles are all programmed to hit carriers as priority target. You can be sure that some of them won't miss it. Just look how UK lost frigates and other ship to less than 10 exocet that they knew all the capabilities.

I give Up.....

walle83 wrote:I give Up.....

Well I had the same conversation about that with another member. He said US carrier are so powerfull and russian bases are sitting duck.

Tomahawks have very limited range when it comes to attack Russian bases which most of them are unreachable by them. And if they want to use them from russian shores they will have to counter all russian anti sub ship and the 60 subs they have and all the land based navy aircrafts.

Russia is invicible because they havve 6000+ nuks. Navies against russia are totally useless. Specially US ones which is concentrated around the 10 carrier they have. Siviets and russians spend nearly 80 years to make weapons to counter those 10 carriers while the US carriers haven't evolved that much.

F-18 and f-35 are useless once you manage to hit the carrier.

Most people think navies are great because US used them successfuly against guys armed with ak-47 in Afghanistan or in Iraq bjt against a real army like russian or chinese they won't last more than 10 days near the shores of the enemy.

My point has always been that Russia has lost alot of its naval power since the collapse of the Soviet union and that China has raisen to a real power in the last 15 years.
Some just seems to ignore this and find any and all reason to make Russia invincible No matter what.

No one cares about chinese naval power, only US. Even the asian countries don't care because they know they have 0 chance to win against china in a war. Its navy btw is just a copy of what would have been soviet navy today nothing more.

Russian naval ship makes first-ever call in Papua New Guinea

More than 200 second-and fourth-year cadets from the Naval Institute at the Naval Academy military educational and scientific center are onboard the ship

MOSCOW, May 16. /TASS/. The Russian training ship Perekop has arrived to the capital of Papua New Guinea, Port Moresby, on a business voyage. This is the first time in the history of both countries’ relations that a Russian naval ship called at a Papua New Guinean port, said Navy spokesperson Captain 1st rank Igor Dygalo.

More:
http://tass.com/defense/1004605

Putin: Ships armed with Kalibr missiles to be permanently on duty in Mediterranean

A total of 102 voyages by surface ships and submarines are scheduled for this year, according to the Russian president

SOCHI, May 16. /TASS/. Russian naval ships armed with cruise missiles Kalibr will be permanently on duty in the Mediterranean, Russian President Vladimir Putin said in his opening remarks at a meeting with top officials of the Defense Ministry and defense-industrial complex on Wednesday.

"A total of 102 voyages by surface ships and submarines are scheduled for this year. As the risk of attacks by international terrorists in Syria remains our ships armed with cruise missiles will be permanently on duty in the Mediterranean," he said.

The range of tasks facing the Russian Navy grew considerably wider in recent years and so did the geographic scope of its presence in the Mediterranean, the North Atlantic and the Asia-Pacific Region. Putin noted well-coordinated operations by the crews of surface ships and submarines during the military operation in Syria.

"Cruise missile strikes and effective operations by deck aircraft inflicted serious losses on the terrorists and eliminated their key facilities and infrastructure," Putin said. These and other crucial tasks were coped with successfully largely thanks to the high combat and technological readiness of the Navy," he said. In particular, Putin noted the growing combat potential of the Navy and the practice of long sea voyages and exercises.

"It is essential to enhance the naval component of the strategic nuclear force. This will increase the role of the Navy in nuclear deterrence," he said.

Putin described as an important task the development of multi-purpose naval groups capable of firmly countering military threats on the sea. He urged special attention to coordinated operations by such groups with the Aerospace Force and other units of the Armed Forces.

He promised that the state would continue to arm the Navy with the newest systems of weapons, communication, intelligence and target setting.


More:
http://tass.com/defense/1004567

Maybe its being discussed elsewhere but I think noteworthy that in May the price of Oil has bumped up over $70, highest since the big late 2014 collapse & part of a steady increase in the last year from a 1yr low of $42.50 in June 2017.
If it can stabilise around this level for a while it should do good things for the budget -> in combo with import substitution kicking in we might see more action in Naval projects.

According to Sputnik the Uragan (first Karakurt) will go to the Baltic Fleet. They will also receive new Su-30SM fighters and "a few" S-400 systems.

Higher oil prices will boost budgets and make spending easier... the Russian navy is not a huge priority right now, but has potential to make Russia a real global economic power...

Not sure where to put this

Its a nice recent pic of a dock lineup at Kronshtadt.

But when you look closer there is so much more going on, fascinating pic.

hoom wrote:Not sure where to put this

Its a nice recent pic of a dock lineup at Kronshtadt.

But when you look closer there is so much more going on, fascinating pic.

It's an exposition for the public.

The pantsir looks so fake. Probably only a maket.

What is the 2nd missile after the guns on the left ? With the long wings.