Russian Navy: Status & News #4

KiloGolf wrote:

Isos wrote:Just look at German frigates which is shit and british destroyer which can be detected by subs hundreds km away. At least russian ships are accepted only if they are very good.

If Russia's shipbuilding benchmark is the German and Royal Navies and industries, then they're setting the bar quite low.
They should look at the US, China, Korea and Japan and take notes.

Korea and Japan are producing basically US ships with US radars and VLS according to US plans.

China started just recently to produce ships in big number for the military. I wouldn't look at them for sure. No one knows how reliable their ship are. It is really easy to build shit that doesn't work in big numbers.

US have the budget to buy tens of new big ship per year so its kinda unfair to compare russia to them. They have lot of experience thanks to that.

Isos wrote:China started just recently to produce ships in big number for the military. I wouldn't look at them for sure. No one knows how reliable their ship are. It is really easy to build shit that doesn't work in big numbers.

China has been building huge numbers or large surface vessels for well over a decade. If that's what you mean by 'recently'.

KiloGolf wrote:

Hole wrote:The next Generation of Subs will be even better. And faster build. Like Buyan-M/Karakurt.

I don't think the Buyan-M is a fast built. It's 2018 and there's only 5 of them active.
> 3 years for commissioning a 900ton fast attack missile craft.
It's bad.

Buyan-M is not fast but it's also pre-Georgia project. Karakurt is coming along fine.

Bigger ships yes definitely, those are waaay too slow. But as long as submarines are getting made properly it's nothing too problematic.

If they had issues with subs then that would be cause for major alarm. Fortunately things are OK there.

KiloGolf wrote:.....
If Russia's shipbuilding benchmark is the German and Royal Navies and industries, then they're setting the bar quite low.
They should look at the US, China, Korea and Japan and take notes.

Those 4 are fast but again, without surface navies those countries might as well not have militaries at all.

China has huge coast, 80% of population lives on the coastline and it's economy is completely dependent on sea traffic.

Japan is an island. Korea might as well be an island since it's only land border is a no-go zone.

And USA+Canada is also pretty much just one giant island. Good for defense but if they want to do offense then it's surface navy or bust. Always was.

Germany is not that bad comparison for Russia (I am shocked UK isn't doing better, they are also island nation) when it comes to surface navy.

Russia should definitely do better of course but as long as subs are done properly it's all bearable.

KiloGolf wrote:

Isos wrote:China started just recently to produce ships in big number for the military. I wouldn't look at them for sure. No one knows how reliable their ship are. It is really easy to build shit that doesn't work in big numbers.

China has been building huge numbers or large surface vessels for well over a decade. If that's what you mean by 'recently'.

[img]https://image.viettimes.vn/Uploaded/vuonghanh/2016_07_23/quandoitqnese-navy_ZPHS.jpg[/i

A decade or two is not enough ... soviet union and usa have been building all sort of ships last 70 years so they have a very good background and russia is trying to catch up on USA because of the 90s shit years and is doing very well about the technology which is state of art. Maybe not numbers but they don't want to build a navy of the size of the soviet navy.

The nuclear subs for exemple are the most advanced in usa and russia because they have build a lot of different classes. India and china who have only recently started building them are far behind yasen and virginia classes in terms of technology and numbers.

Your picture doesn't show how capable they are unfortunatly. If a single virginia sub is better than 10 chinese frugates then they will lose in the pacific.

At least because of the soviet background and very good capabilities of last soviet ships we can be sure that new russian ships are very good. That's not the case of china, we don't know anything about them.

If you want a nice read about subs here you go but it's about kilo class. They also say one Yasen was involved in spying mission but it's unlikly they send a ship being tested on real mission. The crew is srill probably from the shipyard with engineers to test everything. They are not trained to "fight" other subs and ships.

http://www.news.com.au/technology/a-russian-submarines-recent-antics-have-revived-a-cold-war-fear/news-story/4dfdc08d92548f26875fd81c36006ac0

Huh, thats a new variant of The Hunt for Krasnodar propaganda series that were in a whole heap of Western media which don't normally cover military stuff
I saw at least 3 variants previously, all treating Krasnodar as some previously unknown breakthrough despite it being the 4th to have done the same thing off Syria, the final pair for BSF fleet already having been present off Syria for a month & having made at least one 6 missile salvo by the time the articles came out, also pretending to be unaware there have already been 20 improved Kilo sold for export to China, Vietnam & Algeria

It should have been more precise. What i meant was that the Karakurt is produced much faster than the Buyan-M.
One of the causes is that they were developed from the Buyan-M, so most of the problems with the design, the systems and electronics were solved. But the Navy also ordered more ships. In case of the Buyan-M it were 3 ships plus 6 plus another 3, compared with 12+ (19?) Karakurts.

KiloGolf wrote:

Isos wrote:Just look at German frigates which is shit and british destroyer which can be detected by subs hundreds km away. At least russian ships are accepted only if they are very good.

If Russia's shipbuilding benchmark is the German and Royal Navies and industries, then they're setting the bar quite low.
They should look at the US, China, Korea and Japan and take notes.

Well, most korean and japanese Vessels don´t have offensive capabilities. And the japansese Navy is so ig, because they Keep a lot of old ships in Service.

Chinese Vessels are mostly equipped with russian electronics and weapons. No need to develop complicated systems, they just have to weld together the ships. They are good in that.

The Ami is only building succesfully older designs. The Burke is a derivative of the Spruance, so from the 70´s. Systems are mostly from the 80´s and 90´s, except for some HD Monitors in the CIC (I´m exaggerating a bit). Virginas are warmed up Los Angeles. There newer designs are disastrous. Zumwalt. LCS. Even there latest carrier was long overdue, although the Yard is doing nothing else for the last seventy years.

Hole wrote:Well, most korean and japanese Vessels don´t have offensive capabilities.

Actually they do and it's well beyond anything the average, active Soviet/Russian frigate or destroyer have.

Mk 41 VLS:
Japan: Atago class Destroyer (96 cells), Kongou class Destroyer (96 cells), Hyuga class Helicopter Destroyer (16 cells), Murasame class Destroyer (16 cells), Takanami class Destroyer (32 cells), Akizuki class Destroyer (32 cells)
South Korea: Chungmugong Yi Sun Shin class Destroyer (32 cells), King Sejong the Great class Destroyer (80 cells)

Korea has offensive missiles to equip their ships, right now. Japan is changing its legislation in 2020 and will get cruise missiles pronto. They have the ships, the have the tech, they have the numbers, plenty of capable VLS cells available. I give them Japanese by 2022 to have everything up and running.

Hopefully by 2020 the 1st frigate Gorshkov will be active with the RuN  

They got the tech? You mean they buy overprized shit from Amiland. That doesn´t work in real life.

KiloGolf wrote:

Hole wrote:Well, most korean and japanese Vessels don´t have offensive capabilities.

Actually they do and it's well beyond anything the average, active Soviet/Russian frigate or destroyer have.

Subsonic Calibr -2,600 km
Ykhont ~ 600 km AFAIK thats so bad?

Korean munitions aren't the same range as Russian. And they do have supersonic too, but don't know the range of the Korean variant.

miketheterrible wrote:Korean munitions aren't the same range as Russian. And they do have supersonic too, but don't know the range of the Korean variant.

Hyunmoo-3 last variant is 1500km in range. Against russian mainland protected by RUSSIAN air deffence it's not really that capable. On the other hand Kalibr have a range of 2000km and South Korea or Japan are easier targets than russia because they lack all the SAM russia has.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Republic_of_Korea_Navy_weaponry

They don't seem to have supersonic missiles.

Well, interesting and subsonic, still a threat.

GunshipDemocracy wrote:

KiloGolf wrote:

Hole wrote:Well, most korean and japanese Vessels don´t have offensive capabilities.

Actually they do and it's well beyond anything the average, active Soviet/Russian frigate or destroyer have.

Subsonic Calibr -2,600 km
Ykhont ~ 600 km AFAIK thats so bad?

A cruise missile with 1,000 km or 1,500 km of declared range is good enough for anything. And that's an offensive enough capability to ruin someone's day (looking at the Pacific flotilla, as 'fleet' for the surface component would be unrealistic).

Basically Korea and Japan have a great asset in those 80 and 96 VLS cells, on active vessels, right now. Not some few small boats with 8 cells of whatever. It's silver bullet mentality vs. robust offensive capability with vision.

PS. the declared range of western cruise missile systems is always intentionally trimmed down for political reasons.

KiloGolf wrote:
A cruise missile with 1,000 km or 1,500 km of declared range is good enough for anything. And that's an offensive enough capability to ruin someone's day (looking at the Pacific flotilla, as 'fleet' for the surface component would be unrealistic).

You are comparing apples to oranges.  Even if any madman in Japan or Korea would appear a salvo of 2x8 supersonic ASh missiles is enough to sink any of those assets. The question is  why Russia needs to spend billions NOW to build those ships?
To bomb whom precisely ? Korea? Japan? USA?
For bombing Paupas in near future  you got either  Tu-160M2 (12 Kh-50) or Antey 949 - 72 Calibers.  For intruder fleets either Kindhal (2,000km + or  soon GZUR (Tu-160M2 - 12x)


BTW

Basically Korea and Japan have a great asset in those 80 and 96 VLS cells, on active vessels, right now. Not some few small boats with 8 cells of whatever. It's silver bullet mentality vs. robust offensive capability with vision.

Japan is couple of islands  with 4-5 large metropolitan areas.   Korea same kind of situation. Only peninsula instead of islands.
So what they have to invest to? armored units? or infantry?  BTW in US what is average load of tomahawks on Burkes? 8? 12?

PS. the declared range of western cruise missile systems is always intentionally trimmed down for political reasons.

[/quote]

and Russian not?

Haha. When Russian cruise missiles surprise NATO chauvinist retards with their range, they start yapping that American wunderwaffe
has way more range but it was never advertised. Yeah, sure.

Anyway, nobody has the range of the nuclear powered cruise missiles that Russia has developed. Nobody aside from Russia. After
their surprise with the Syrian long range attacks, they must have crapped their pants when they heard Putin's announcement.
That would explain the shit throwing tantrum we see from from the UK today.

Will you all please stick with the topic???

Two weeks ago you were doing this crap on Borei tread, week ago on Arctic Patrol Ship tread and now here.

WTF?

PapaDragon wrote:
Will you all please stick with the topic???

Two weeks ago you were doing this crap on Borei tread, week ago on Arctic Patrol Ship tread and now here.

WTF?

Take a valium, thread-police wannabe.

PapaDragon wrote:
Will you all please stick with the topic???

Two weeks ago you were doing this crap on Borei tread, week ago on Arctic Patrol Ship tread and now here.

WTF?

PS. Read post #567 above, then bark about staying on topic. Also, perhaps you should stop with your
anti-Iranian drivel in the Syria threads.

continue all here

Comparing apples with oranges. I wanted to juse this phrase, Gunship!

Look, KiloGolf. In all the countrys you listed, the Navy is the number 1. In Amiland the Navy receives half of the defence (in reality: aggression) Budget. In Russia the Navy Comes behind Army, Aerospace Forces and Strategic Missile Force.

Don´t forget, that most cells of this ships will be filled with air defence missiles. You don´t send a ship out with 80 cruise Missiles and no air defence. They would be sitting ducks.

Hole wrote:Look, KiloGolf. In all the countrys you listed, the Navy is the number 1. In Amiland the Navy receives half of the defence (in reality: aggression) Budget. In Russia the Navy Comes behind Army, Aerospace Forces and Strategic Missile Force.

Don´t forget, that most cells of this ships will be filled with air defence missiles. You don´t send a ship out with 80 cruise Missiles and no air defence. They would be sitting ducks.

My opinion is that Russia of 2010 or 2015 (the latest) could have comfortably laid down six 5,000t destroyers (across 2 or 3 Russian shipyards) and start commissioning them this year; with a destroyer delivered every 6-8 months. I don't see why they couldn't have made it other than horrible mismanagement and criminal administration of public funds.

All this while pursuing whatever 'small corvette' projects they currently do.

What's the reason for pursuing redut/S-350, when already Shtil works?
Why no just buy Chinese engines and get on with it?
Why not stretch and build on an existing design like Krivak IV and get a proper destroyer out of it?

Russia is facing F-35 issues with their entire surface fleet right now, trying to build on expensive, immature tech that doesn't work and doesn't deliver, giving huge cost overruns and resulting to nearly 2 decades in delays.

Personally, I would have just made more newer iterations of the krivak class like grigorovich. Like a newer variants sporting newer tech like radar and onboard missiles. Since it uses Shtil, give it newest Buk missiles as example. And then distribute the design and what not to other shipyards to increase production.

Would have made commonality of parts cheaper, faster to produce and it would be a solid ship for all seas.

But I'm not in charge, so oh well.

miketheterrible wrote:Personally, I would have just made more newer iterations of the krivak class like grigorovich. Like a newer variants sporting newer tech like radar and onboard missiles. Since it uses Shtil, give it newest Buk missiles as example. And then distribute the design and what not to other shipyards to increase production.

Would have made commonality of parts cheaper, faster to produce and it would be a solid ship for all seas.

But I'm not in charge, so oh well.

+1

KiloGolf wrote:

GunshipDemocracy wrote:

KiloGolf wrote:

Hole wrote:Well, most korean and japanese Vessels don´t have offensive capabilities.

Actually they do and it's well beyond anything the average, active Soviet/Russian frigate or destroyer have.

Subsonic Calibr -2,600 km
Ykhont ~ 600 km AFAIK thats so bad?

A cruise missile with 1,000 km or 1,500 km of declared range is good enough for anything. And that's an offensive enough capability to ruin someone's day (looking at the Pacific flotilla, as 'fleet' for the surface component would be unrealistic).

Basically Korea and Japan have a great asset in those 80 and 96 VLS cells, on active vessels, right now. Not some few small boats with 8 cells of whatever. It's silver bullet mentality vs. robust offensive capability with vision.

PS. the declared range of western cruise missile systems is always intentionally trimmed down for political reasons.

Those ships are designed against air targets and land targets.


To attack ships you need lot of assets scattered over a huge area, and launch relatively small amount of missile.

One Burke is not enough to attack one single airfield.

One small vessel with eight onyx enough to attack one burke.