Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Russian Navy: Status & News #4

    Share
    SeigSoloyvov
    SeigSoloyvov

    Posts : 1187
    Points : 1185
    Join date : 2016-04-08

    Re: Russian Navy: Status & News #4

    Post  SeigSoloyvov on Wed Nov 07, 2018 5:20 pm

    Tsavo Lion wrote:
    One thing is for sure; the navy cannot in the foreseeable future even hope to match its adversaries pound for pound.
    They know it & don't even try to do that! Being #2 is a step below #1.
    As Suvorov said: not with #s, but with ability!

    #3

    China is 2.
    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 1941
    Points : 1941
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Re: Russian Navy: Status & News #4

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Wed Nov 07, 2018 6:11 pm

    I know, but Putin wants it to be #2. But it's all relative & may not be that relevant. The US has the NATO Naval Standing Force Group 2 at its disposal around Europe,etc. to step in while most the USN is engaged elsewhere. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standing_NATO_Maritime_Group_2

    In the Asia-Pacific, the RCN, JMSDF, RAN, ROCN, & IN can assist the USN 7th fleet. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Canadian_Navy#Fleet


    Last edited by Tsavo Lion on Fri Nov 09, 2018 1:22 am; edited 1 time in total (Reason for editing : add link)
    eehnie
    eehnie

    Posts : 2508
    Points : 2525
    Join date : 2015-05-13

    Re: Russian Navy: Status & News #4

    Post  eehnie on Thu Nov 08, 2018 11:43 am

    The tone of the article is not realistic. Is totally out of touch.

    Russia has a competent Navy that solved the operation in Syria without problems.

    Russia is completing the reduction of its combat fleet after the end of the Soviet Union, reaching a fleet of stable size.

    Russia is completing a new generation of solid modern designs for every type of warship and auxiliary ship.

    Russia is building ships at the necessary rythm today and is preparing to increase the rythm of commissions by the 2030s, that is when will be needed.

    Modernization and upgrades of the current ships are positive and necessary. Russia has new weapons that must be integrated in the ships, better sooner than later.

    And even Russia begins to modernize older designs in order to finish the units in production not completed after the end of the Soviet Union.

    Finally, Russia continues the reduction of its auxiliary fleet, scrapping the exhausted auxiliary ships, that in a good part require not replacement.

    Russia is doing right.
    SeigSoloyvov
    SeigSoloyvov

    Posts : 1187
    Points : 1185
    Join date : 2016-04-08

    Re: Russian Navy: Status & News #4

    Post  SeigSoloyvov on Thu Nov 08, 2018 2:54 pm

    Russian navy had no problems in Syria.....? they had tons of them, ask their carrier how that went.

    Having designs on paper means nothing only when the ships are built does it become something.

    Their Modernizations half the time do not solve any problems and merely put the already outdated gear back on ships.

    They modernize stuff so dam slow.

    This is why no one takes you seriously all those statements are so out of touch with reality it baffling.
    eehnie
    eehnie

    Posts : 2508
    Points : 2525
    Join date : 2015-05-13

    Re: Russian Navy: Status & News #4

    Post  eehnie on Thu Nov 08, 2018 6:16 pm

    Pro-US readers love to read about collapse and lots of drama, but this is not realistic. Sincerely I think you have enough taking care of your own credit.

    In every deployment are some problems, are accidents, are things broken and repairs, but Russia solved all it fairly well, until to achieve significant victories.

    The alone categories of combat and auxiliary ships where Russia has not ships of modern projects totally completed are:

    - Warship <500 tons: Project 12300
    - SSAN: Project 09851
    - Auxiliary Cable-Laying: Project 15310
    - Warship >10000 tons: Project 23560
    - Warship aircraft carrier: Project 23000

    In the 3 first cases the first unit has been laid down time ago and are likely near the launch.
    In the case of the Project 23560 the preliminary project was approved by April 2017. Since then the phase of technical project, that includes the construction of the first unit, is ongoing, and very likely the lay down of the first unit will be soon.
    In the case of the Project 23000 (and some potential unknown alternative) the preliminary project will be in the hands of the Ministry of Defense for examination by the end of 2018. Next steps are approval of the selected option, and begin of the technical project with the construction of the first unit.

    At this point Russia even has ships completed of some modern projects that are redundant.

    Russia is building and modernizing ships at the rythm they want. Slow rythms of production and modernization mean low number of workers assigned per ship and this is not bad by itself. We know most of the Russian shipyards come from the time of the WWII, and are giant, to attend needs of war time. We know that it allows to Russia to mantain big number of ships under construction and modernization and we know that the Russian shipyards are working in peace time very far of their full capability, but neither it is bad by itself. Instead, Russia takes advantage of it.

    If I would have to make some improvement in the refered to the rythms of production and modernization, I would accelerate the production of the first unit of the new aircraft carrier. The projects which first unit is not completed by the end of 2025 likely will fall to the next geneartion of armament.

    The allegued chaos and drama in the situation of the Russian Navy and the Russian shipyards is more noise than other thing. In every factory there are problems every day, the problems with Ukraine forced to introduce changes and to modify timelines, in some cases delaying and in other cases accelerating, but the rythm of deliveries is basically the rythm needed by the Russian Navy, not lower.
    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 1941
    Points : 1941
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Re: Russian Navy: Status & News #4

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Thu Nov 08, 2018 7:46 pm

    С понтом под зонтом, а сам под дождем- s pontom pod zontom, a sam pod dozdem! It's an expression of distrust in what has been said. They r modernizing many ships & subs that otherwise would be scrapped, had they been able to build new 1s on schedule & on budget!
    In contrast, since 1991, despite all the ongoing local wars & deployments, the USN deactivated a CVN, decommissioned 9 CGNs, 5 CGs, 27 SSNs & dozens of many other ships:  
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Enterprise_(CVN-65)#Decommissioning
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_powered_cruisers_of_the_United_States_Navy
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ticonderoga-class_cruiser#Ships_in_class
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Los_Angeles-class_submarines#Summary_by_status
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kidd-class_destroyer#Ships_in_class
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spruance-class_destroyer#Decommissioning
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_frigates_of_the_United_States_Navy#Knox-class_FF
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_frigates_of_the_United_States_Navy#Oliver_Hazard_Perry-class_FFG
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarawa-class_amphibious_assault_ship#Decommissioning_and_replacement
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iowa-class_battleship#Ships

    Excluding SSBNs, all of the above could form a fleet larger than the corresponding classes in the active VMF!
    eehnie
    eehnie

    Posts : 2508
    Points : 2525
    Join date : 2015-05-13

    Re: Russian Navy: Status & News #4

    Post  eehnie on Thu Nov 08, 2018 8:37 pm

    Early scrapping only makes sense for reduction of the fleet. Otherwise is a bad business in economical sense.
    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 1941
    Points : 1941
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Re: Russian Navy: Status & News #4

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Fri Nov 09, 2018 12:34 am

    In the US, they build a lot of expensive high tech ships & subs that get decommissioned early not just to reduce the fleet, but mostly to make room for more expensive new ships & subs, incl. new classes, wasting a lot of $. Still, they can afford to do it!
    In Russia, they build fewer & less advanced ships & subs, of more classes, wasting $ & time, & having to convert/modernize them to keep them active longer as there isn't much to replace them with.
    Even though Russia doesn't need as many ships & subs as the USN has, her fleets r widely separated & need to be self-sustaining w/o having to depend so much on transfers between themselves.
    Plus, her icebreaker fleet must be maintained, operated & renewed, not to mention the Coast Guard. It's an uphill battle!
    eehnie
    eehnie

    Posts : 2508
    Points : 2525
    Join date : 2015-05-13

    Re: Russian Navy: Status & News #4

    Post  eehnie on Fri Nov 09, 2018 10:11 pm

    Russia needs not to repeat every wrong thing done by the US.
    magnumcromagnon
    magnumcromagnon

    Posts : 4785
    Points : 4944
    Join date : 2013-12-05
    Location : Pindos ave., Pindosville, Pindosylvania, Pindostan

    Re: Russian Navy: Status & News #4

    Post  magnumcromagnon on Sat Nov 10, 2018 1:20 am

    Much has been said about the inefficiency of the Federation's shipyards, however this is something that's not going to be fixed overnight. I have a proposition in the meantime; why not create a tug-munition system? By that I mean create a system of self-contained munitions built on floating barges, that can be tugged behind existing ships to improve their firepower. A relatively simple yet effective quick solution, you could have set of floating barges with a multitude of different systems, like a barge with several dozen UKSK launchers, or another floating barge with several dozen Polymut-Redut launchers as well as ECM and decoys. Those munitions could be guided with existing sensors on the boat tugging them, or another floating barge could contain radars, electronic-optical sensors, command posts, etc. This in theory should only take a small fraction of the time to produce compared to the ships, and they should be easily fully modular, easily upgradeable.
    PapaDragon
    PapaDragon

    Posts : 7669
    Points : 7763
    Join date : 2015-04-26
    Location : Fort Evil, Serbia

    Re: Russian Navy: Status & News #4

    Post  PapaDragon on Sat Nov 10, 2018 1:39 am


    I have better idea: how about they just swallow their unearned pride and order several dozen frigates from Chinese? They just need blank ships with hulls and engines,they can install local weapons and sensors themselves.





    eehnie wrote:Russia needs not to repeat every wrong thing done by the US.

    Correct, starting with wasting money on carriers (yesterday's war)
    magnumcromagnon
    magnumcromagnon

    Posts : 4785
    Points : 4944
    Join date : 2013-12-05
    Location : Pindos ave., Pindosville, Pindosylvania, Pindostan

    Re: Russian Navy: Status & News #4

    Post  magnumcromagnon on Sat Nov 10, 2018 2:02 am

    PapaDragon wrote:
    I have better idea: how about they just swallow their unearned pride and order several dozen frigates from Chinese? They just need blank ships with hulls and engines,they can install local weapons and sensors themselves.





    eehnie wrote:Russia needs not to repeat every wrong thing done by the US.

    Correct, starting with wasting money on carriers (yesterday's war)

    The barge-munition system is basically like what we seen with the containerized version of Klub, etc., except taken to another level. Nothing overly complex, high modularity, should be very quick to produce and implement, should theoretically add immense capability to existing ships. Besides:

    On the new border patrol ship "Impeccable" Chinese diesel broke
    PapaDragon
    PapaDragon

    Posts : 7669
    Points : 7763
    Join date : 2015-04-26
    Location : Fort Evil, Serbia

    Re: Russian Navy: Status & News #4

    Post  PapaDragon on Sat Nov 10, 2018 2:09 am

    Chinese diesel may break but at least it exists unlike Russian one

    Buy couple of spare engines and you are in the clear











    Last edited by PapaDragon on Sat Nov 10, 2018 2:31 am; edited 1 time in total
    avatar
    hoom

    Posts : 1593
    Points : 1583
    Join date : 2016-05-06

    Re: Russian Navy: Status & News #4

    Post  hoom on Sat Nov 10, 2018 2:18 am

    why not create a tug-munition system?
    My mind went straight to

    dunno  Laughing

    Barges as UKSK launchers along the inland waterways makes sense, less so with US pulling out of INF.
    A self propelled Arsenal ship to provide extra VLS for a taskforce makes sense.
    But not a barge towed in the ocean by a combat ship.

    Its mainly not the actual shipbuilding thats the issue though, its systems & equipment. Barges/arsenal ships won't solve that.


    Last edited by hoom on Sat Nov 10, 2018 2:20 am; edited 2 times in total
    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 1941
    Points : 1941
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Re: Russian Navy: Status & News #4

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Sat Nov 10, 2018 2:19 am

    Russia needs not to repeat every wrong thing done by the US.
    As applied to their circumstances, the US didn't make as many costly mistakes as Russia; the latter needs to learn from her own mistakes & not repeat them.  
    A towed barge will slow the ship down & reduce it's maneuverability, increase fuel consumption & strain its engines. Bad idea!
    Barges as UKSK launchers along the inland waterways makes sense, less so with US pulling out of INF.
    I doubt the US will put many new missiles in Europe, they have enough on naval platforms & planes already. It's being done to scare Russia into more spending on her defense & deploy missiles in Japan & the ME against China, NK & Iran: https://iz.ru/810595/2018-11-10/ssha-prokommentirovali-plany-po-razmeshcheniiu-raket-v-evrope

    I mentioned buying ships in the PRC a while back. Now, they may want to order floating docks as well.


    Last edited by Tsavo Lion on Sat Nov 10, 2018 3:21 am; edited 1 time in total (Reason for editing : add link)
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 19905
    Points : 20457
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian Navy: Status & News #4

    Post  GarryB on Sat Nov 10, 2018 2:02 pm

    Russia does not need Americas navy... the cost of operating even just two US carrier groups would bankrupt the entire Russian military budget for no practical gain at all.

    Right now the Russian Navy does its job... lots of changes are being made, but the pace is not blinding because there is no need.

    As applied to their circumstances, the US didn't make as many costly mistakes as Russia;

    Are you kidding... the Zumwalt and F-35 combined have probably cost more money that would be needed to end world hunger and much of the worlds poverty...

    Comanche, the various attempts to replace the M16, and the Paladin SPA... there are so many dead ends and screwups...

    A towed barge will slow the ship down & reduce it's maneuverability, increase fuel consumption & strain its engines. Bad idea!

    That is why you use a tug boat to move them and most of the time you keep them tied up on the side of the river...

    But with the US pulling out of the INF treaty then why not put them in trucks for better mobility?

    What they need to do in that regard is develop a low accuracy 3,500km range two stage missile with just an enormous warhead... 10-100MTs and just build hundreds of them and publicly state that they will be pointed at any US bases in Europe and the capital cities and major cities of any country US bases are located... including every country in europe.

    Also put them in the Russian far east pointed at Japanese and South Korea population centres with the same deal...

    Chinese diesel may break but at least it exists unlike Russian one

    Buy couple of spare engines and you are in the clear

    Of course.... give the Chinese lots of money to perfect their diesel engine industry... why waste money developing Russian capability in that area... I mean how many possible applications could there be for a modern efficient diesel engine... duh.

    I mentioned buying ships in the PRC a while back. Now, they may want to order floating docks as well.

    Floating docks are different... why not have them made in the PRC... the ones they have were made in Sweden and Finland anyway...

    George1
    George1

    Posts : 12838
    Points : 13325
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    Re: Russian Navy: Status & News #4

    Post  George1 on Sat Nov 24, 2018 4:10 pm

    "Why the near zone of the domestic fleet was defenseless"

    The newspaper "Independent Military Review" published another article by Maxim Klimov "The Russian Navy ran into mines and submarines. Why the near zone of the Russian fleet was defenseless" with the author’s traditional criticism of modern domestic naval construction.

    "Fleet Commander fleet admiral G.M. Yegorov threw an introductory squadron to us - to find patrol areas of the Norwegian submarines. Virtually none of our nuclear submarines could not enter or exit the main base unnoticed by them. We knew about their presence nearby, but it was necessary to find a way to get around their positions. We were asked to search for battery charging areas and, clinging to the boat, to trace it before entering the patrol area. The squadron allocated two pairs of submarines operating in the tactical groups. To no avail, ”wrote the flagship miner of the 4th squadron, EK. Penzin.

    It should be noted that Admiral Egorov was perhaps the only commander of the fleet who understood this danger, including on the basis of his own military experience: in December 1944, while repairing his submarine on the ground, he was in the rendezvous area of ​​three German submarines and had long hydroacoustic contact with one of them.

    No distant zone, aircraft carriers, naval strategic nuclear forces (NSNF), cruisers, destroyers are out of the question unless an elementary escape from the base is provided in anti-mine and the ships will be shot by enemy submarines practically “at the exit fairway”.

    In the Soviet Navy this was well understood and had powerful forces to protect the water area (OVR). Today, the forces of the near zone of the Russian Navy have completely lost their combat significance. Moreover, the situation with the forces of the near zone of the fleet can be described in one word - a catastrophe. Thus, in Kamchatka, there is virtually no anti-submarine and anti-mine support for the grouping of strategic missile submarines of Project 955, and the existing pair of small anti-submarine ships (IPC) and three minesweepers are only able to "carry the flag" due to the antiquarianity of their weapons.

    Without going into the classic definitions of the Navy’s OVR tasks (and much outdated), we will designate the key ones: anti-submarine defense (PLO), anti-mine defense (MMP), anti-diversionary diversion defense (EITI), destruction of light forces and surface ships of the enemy, “control” (intelligence ) in the near zone and the exclusion of the sudden actions of the enemy, as well as air defense. Given the new capabilities of the Caliber missile system, the destruction of ground targets was added to these tasks.


    WATERPROOF DEFENSE


    At present, Russia has in no way provided in the part of the anti-submarine defense (PLO) near-sea zone. To the extent that the deployment of the NSNF is not assured. Moreover, the solution of this critical problem is not even planned, since:

    - first, the proposed stationary systems obviously do not have the necessary survivability and combat stability (can be disabled at any time);

    - secondly, domestic PLO aviation systems have extremely low TTH and are very expensive to use;

    - Thirdly, the ship's staff - very outdated and worn, and the ships of new projects have significant disadvantages in terms of the PLO, and can not solve the challenges faced at the minimum level.

    For almost fifty years, the main anti-submarine ship of the OVR has been the IPC of project 1124 / 1124M. For its time, the ship had a very effective, breakthrough concept and application model, which predetermined the long life of the project. In confirmation, let me give an assessment of the IPC of the project of 1124 professionals with a capital captain of rank 1 A.E. Soldatenkov, commander of the second Pacific building:

    "In the course of solving the problem with conflicting requirements: to create a low-frequency sonar is lowered (OGAS) in the smallest possible dimensions - appeared OGAS MG-339. And already from the achieved weight-dimensions and energy consumption, they began to select a suitable carrier for it ...

    Search PL "on foot" significantly reduces search performance ... to improve this indicator can be movement between the container drop point as fast as possible ... it is not just for anti-submarine ships with OGAS, and high-speed ship with artillery, anti-aircraft missiles, anti-submarine weapons ... has turned what was intended: the surface carrier of long-acting means of detecting long-range submarines with self-defense weapons ...

    Subsequently, the second "Albatross" has done a lot for the first time, for example, showed a maximum range submarine detection corresponding TTD OGAS and Hydrology at the time (38.6 km). Actually I discovered and accompanied podkilnoy sonar torpedo fired from a submarine ... Provides combat training ships (in particular, with the help of the group attacks the system for the first time to the Pacific Fleet issued target designation for the application of anti-missile-torpedoes two patrol ships of project 1135), combat training submarines second flotilla , their deployment to combat training, combat service and return to base ...

    The appearance on the Kamchatka only the first two of these ships has forced our "probable Friends" - American submariners - shift patrolling their PLA (submarine nuclear -. "NVO") that reside on exploration in the Kamchatka area, a lot of the south-east of the former positions. That is, even for these insolent people, we were a real search force! ”

    It turns out that in the mid-60s the Research Institute of the Navy and the Zelenodolsk Design Bureau (PKB) were able to develop a new, completely original concept of small ship PLO, who had not only podkilnuyu sonar (SAS), but also a powerful long-range OGAS in combined with new search tactics. With high speed on the “jump” and group actions of the ship's search and strike group, the capabilities of the IPC Project 1124 made it very dangerous for the enemy submarines. In fact, before the advent of large anti-submarine ships (BOD) Project 1155, had eight times larger displacement, the IPC project in 1124 were the most effective anti-submarine ships of the Soviet Navy.

    Alas, in the 80s and the following years, naval science failed to develop a new effective concept for small PLO ships (or multipurpose ones). It all came down to the “small frigate” (project 20380), which, at a cost, “suddenly” turned into a frigate.

    Efficiency solutions ASW tasks without anti-submarine missiles (RLP) is not known to be provided, and the availability of a hangar with a helicopter is of little use, as to ensure the rapid application of suspicious contacts necessary its location directly at the landing site (WFP), despite the fact that the cost-effectiveness of self submarine search at the Ka-27PL on modern submarines is extremely low.

    One of the major domestic experts as assess the current situation: the need to continue to build the project 20380 with the universal shipboard firing system (UKSK) and "Caliber", but reformulated electronic weapons (instead of "Furka" and "Monolith" put "Positive" and "Mineral "); instead of an expensive air defense system, install a pair of “Pantsir” along the sides; helicopter and acoustics to leave unchanged. Start "Package" to remake from powder to air. It will not be cheap (for Caliber), but this is the only alternative in terms of the 1124 replacement.

    However, at first glance, consistency is an opinion, in fact, erroneous, since it does not provide a solution to the most acute problem in the near zone — control. And the latter requires a significant amount of effective gas (and "optimally distributed"), that is, ships. The high cost of even the “simplified” ships of project 20380 eliminates an effective solution to this problem.

    Despite good means of searching for submarines of the new corvettes of the project 20380, for enemy submarines it is a simple goal (due to the absence of anti-submarine missiles) and roads for mass construction. A new project is needed, which will no longer be a “game” for the submarine, but will become a submarine hunter.

    As a model to follow, you can take the Chinese Corvette of the project 056, characterized by balanced armament.

    At present, the most effective means of searching for submarines is the towed sonar station (BUGAS) “Minotaur”. The obvious solution in this situation is the massive "minotaurization" of the near zone. That is, we need a carrier with "Minotaurs", anti-submarine and anti-ship missiles, as well as self-defense means, which have a limited cost and are suitable for mass serial construction. As a matter of fact, the “almost it” of the Navy planned - in the form of the program of the “IWR corvette”. However, it was closed when the commander in chief of the Navy, Viktor Chirkov, was without any justification. “New stationary systems” were publicly voiced, which actually did not exist and the combat stability of which is close to zero.

    Does the Navy need stationary underwater lighting systems? Of course! But only as an element of the overall PLO system in the theater of operations (theater of operations). And they will not replace the ship component.

    Instead of the OVR corvettes, a completely incomprehensible program of building patrol ships was launched, which today turned out to be too weak for new tasks in the far zone (instead of hungry pirates with rusty submachine guns, experienced and well-trained terrorists became reality), but at the same time they received a significant shortage of speed and seaworthiness. Opinion about the possibility of implementation on the basis of the project 22160 "corvette OVR" has no reason because of the extremely low performance characteristics of such a ship. The problem with the project 22160 has the only sensible solution - transferring them to the Baltic to create a security system, namely, patrolling the areas where the Nord Stream gas pipeline is located to eliminate sabotage acts on it.

    Today, it is obvious that it is necessary to return to the OVR corvette in optimal shape, and it should be the main project of the near zone. Moreover, the appearance of such a corvette is close to the OVR corvettes of the project 056 of the Chinese naval forces.

    Understanding that to solve problems in the near zone, a significant number of ships are needed, the command of the Chinese Navy went to their substantial simplification with consistent capacity building in the process of serial construction and modernization. As a result, initially the modest Corvette of the project 056 gained effective means of search - BUGAS, with a high probability - PCR (in place of the missile defense crew), and also got the possibility of ensuring the use of a helicopter (the runway without permanently basing the helicopter on board).

    Obviously, to ensure mass serial construction, we need to eliminate the use of expensive and problematic components and complexes. At the same time, the project should not only have significant modernization reserves to ensure increased combat capabilities during the construction and operation of the ship, but also ensure that such work can be carried out in a short time and at low cost. The latter should be incorporated into the project initially and constructively. This is where the real purpose of the fashionable “modularity concept” should be, and not in putting everything into 20- and 40-foot containers.

    Work on the modernization of the project should be planned and laid immediately, including to ensure the deployment of construction of corvettes in the shortest possible time (minimum configuration) with a subsequent increase in their capabilities (to eliminate the situation when the ship is waiting for the complex).

    Due to the considerable time required to prepare for the departure from the “helicopter in the hangar” position (the inability to quickly respond to the threat) and the low combat capabilities of the helicopter search facilities, the permanent deployment of the helicopter on the OVR corvette. However, the runway and the need to refuel it. The on-board complex of at least two large boats (in the future, unmanned boats) with launching devices, which ensure their use in waves of the sea up to 5 points inclusive, is definitely necessary.

    AGAINST LIGHT FORCES

    Given the US withdrawal from the Treaty on the Elimination of Intermediate-Range and Shorter-Range Missiles, the role of "rocket cannoners" is dramatically reduced - we are much more profitable to deploy cruise missiles on land and aircraft carriers (or large ships), and the destruction of naval targets in the near zone is already well provided by coastal rocket complexes and aviation. Thus, there is no need to force the "fire series" of small rocket ships (MRK) of project 22800. Moreover, in order to disclose the full potential of this project, it is advisable to wait for the completion of work on gas turbines (for the far-from RTCs of the Far Eastern series).

    At the same time, the critical issue of countering the enemy’s light forces is the implementation of a reliable and effective interspecific system of reconnaissance and exchange of information about the situation. The situation that we had during the events of the war of 08/08/08, when they were shooting “somewhere”, not knowing whom, was unacceptable.

    A separate question - the unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV) fleet. The undoubted advantage is the presence in the fleets of regular structures with UAVs of the “Forpost” and “Orlan-10” type (using them from the shore). However, with ship drones, the lag is catastrophic - they are simply not there. Moreover, the available details on the work in this direction speak of their extremely low organization and level. For example, tests of the Orlan UAV on the Admiral Grigorovich frigate of the Black Sea Fleet ended up with the drone crashing into the ship’s hangar, and the Orlan launch vehicle at the Uragan MRK during the rehearsal of the Main Naval Parade clearly says that they put it only on the parade and did not think about the use of the UAV in reality: the take-off of the aircraft in the direction opposite to the movement of the ship was something new in ship aviation and contrary to its experience, but also to common sense.

    An extremely acute problem is the arming of near-zone ships against light forces, namely the complete absence of light missile complexes in the Russian Navy. On the one hand, this is uncritical for boats with 76-mm artillery, but for smaller boats it can be fatal. The situation when the commander of the Black Sea Fleet reported to the Headquarters about the battles of boats: “We are fighting on carts against tanks”, we already passed into the Great Patriotic War. Today in our media, it is customary to ridicule new Ukrainian boats, including those transferred to the Sea of ​​Azov region. However, they have low visibility, EW facilities, as well as rocket armament, that is, everything that is not on our boats. As a result, they are an extremely dangerous adversary, significantly superior in power and effective range of destruction of weapons to our Raptor and Rook boats.

    There is an obvious urgent need to create in the shortest possible time light missile systems (for example, based on Kornet-D or Attack) and equip them with naval boats.


    SHUTTLE DEFENSE

    The minesweepers, which are presently present in the combat composition of the Navy, have long since become outdated and have practically lost their combat significance. And the new project of the sea minesweeper (MTShch) of the project 12700 has a number of key disadvantages:

    - the outdated concept of an MIP is a ship “before the first modern mine”;

    - a deliberately not provided with the actual explosion resistance;

    - limited efficiency at shallow depths;

    - inability to solve multipurpose tasks (at least at the project level of 266M);

    - the possibilities of serial construction are limited by the capacities of PJSC "Zvezda" (one set of diesel engines per year).

    With this in mind, it is definitely necessary to implement the following set of measures:

    - perform the modernization of the project 12700 with the elimination of the existing shortcomings;

    - proceed to the emergency construction of a series of raid minesweepers on the basis of the project 10750E with the condition of import substitution and increasing the performance characteristics (while the unsuccessful French complex and its analogs must be definitely replaced with a complex really capable of solving problems);

    - start work on a promising project of a new anti-mine ship;

    - to proceed to the emergency development of unmanned boats - carriers of non-contact trawls, without which the work of the extremely expensive self-propelled remote-controlled vehicle (STA) ISPUM will be only “before the first mine defender”, on which it will be undermined.

    At the same time, the new RTShch should become an “integrated boat” to support the base, including the ability to solve the tasks of the EITA and air defense, for which the ship is equipped with a weapon module with a large-caliber machine gun “Kord” and guided missiles.

    Especially focus on the appearance of mine-mine apparatus mine-sweepers. It turned out very badly with the self-propelled remote-controlled device ISPUM. In fact, this is a “piece of hydroacoustic complex” weighing a ton and significant feld fields, which were also supposed to destroy the mines (in fact, to nail nails with a microscope). Our designers borrowed the idea of ​​CTA with GAS from Swedes (CTA Double Eagle with powerful GAS of mine detection), but in the West it was implemented differently - CTA with GUS was a search tool, and hammers for mines were much simpler PAP- 104, massively supplemented today with small CTA SMOs. For example, on the 450-ton Tralpit type minesweepers that visited IMDS-2009, there were two STA destroyers PAP-104 and one STA seeker “Double Needles”. We have the same project 12700 - only one seeker-destroyer.

    Problems with a high probability of undermining heavy and expensive STA SMPs led to the mass appearance of small STA PMOs and the Renaissance (in the West) of self-propelled proximity trawls, but not for mines trawling, but primarily to ensure the use of STA PMO. At the same time, small STAs of the SIP are not able to solve the whole range of the tasks of the SIP (for example, to ensure the destruction of silted mines), and their optimal interaction with the heavy STA of the SIP is necessary.

    At the same time, in order to ensure mass mass production and accumulation of the necessary ammunition for the fleet, STA destroyers must have a minimum cost. The creation and mass serial production of such devices taking into account the requirements of the criterion "efficiency - cost" is impossible without the widespread use of the components of the general industrial purpose.


    STRUGGLE AGAINST DIVERSION


    The most common "unit" OVR today became anti-diversion boats of the type "Rook". Despite good seaworthiness and habitability (important characteristics taking into account the specifics of the tasks they perform), they have a number of critical drawbacks:

    - low efficiency of search tools (hydroacoustic search and survey complex (SEC) “Kalmar”), which do not provide an effective and reliable search on the go - in the “hunter” mode;

    - the lack of means of defeating such targets as ultra-small submarines and “closed” transporters of divers (the effectiveness of RG-55 grenades against them is extremely low);

    - inability to counteract the small boats of the enemy;

    - low combat survivability.

    Obviously, a significant part of these shortcomings is related to the weakness of the Kalmar SEC complex (in fact, a mediocre imported multi-beam echo sounder), therefore, when equipping new raid minesweepers with effective search tools, it is advisable to attract them to effectively solve the EIT problems, construction of the stop with the simultaneous modernization and the elimination of deficiencies on the already built boats.

    https://bmpd.livejournal.com/3425443.html
    Hole
    Hole

    Posts : 1777
    Points : 1777
    Join date : 2018-03-24
    Age : 42
    Location : Merkelland

    Re: Russian Navy: Status & News #4

    Post  Hole on Sat Nov 24, 2018 4:41 pm

    This gut doesn´t even know that the Project 12700 uses UUV´s and robots to hunt down mines. Mad
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 19905
    Points : 20457
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian Navy: Status & News #4

    Post  GarryB on Sun Nov 25, 2018 2:57 pm

    But of course it's all "BS" because it states facts about the Russian navy, The fact is they are being choked on capable blue water surface ships and there is no real production going on for them in the foreseeable future all production has stalled regarding these types of ships but hey dismiss the truth because you don't like it.

    WTF would they do with a blue water navy right now if they had one?

    Honestly... if they had four CVNs right now... three would likely be tied up in port... but which port has the capacity to tie up three 70K ton carriers?

    That exactly how you solve problems by pretending they aren't there~

    You are the one claiming there is a problem the Russians not having the US fleet at its disposal.

    #3

    China is 2.

    Does China win a puppy?

    I know, but Putin wants it to be #2. But it's all relative & may not be that relevant. The US has the NATO Naval Standing Force Group 2 at its disposal around Europe,etc. to step in while most the USN is engaged elsewhere. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standing_NATO_Maritime_Group_2

    In the Asia-Pacific, the RCN, JMSDF, RAN, ROCN, & IN can assist the USN 7th fleet. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Canadian_Navy#Fleet

    All Russia needs is enough missiles... much cheaper than trying to match an enemy fleet like those.

    Russia is doing right.

    X2, well said.

    Russian navy had no problems in Syria.....? they had tons of them, ask their carrier how that went.

    The Russian Navy was inconsequential in the conflict in Syria... it got some experience with real missions with real targets, and it uncovered some problems too.

    Having designs on paper means nothing only when the ships are built does it become something.

    Actually having bad designs is fine until you start making them like Zumwalt, and LCS... it is only when you start mass production and have a few that you start to think about what you are doing and what you have done and realise they have wasted a lot of money that could have been much better spent, or saved and used for something else... I am sure they are having sleepless nights with all that taxpayer money they wasted. NOT.

    Their Modernizations half the time do not solve any problems and merely put the already outdated gear back on ships.

    Yeah because experience has shown Kalibr and Onyx are both useless... can you briefly list the obsolete upgrades...

    They modernize stuff so dam slow.

    Most stuff just needs upgrades to keep it working for now... there is no point trying to make old ships super upgraded ships... it is like aircraft... no level of upgrade will make a 4th gen fighter into a 5th gen fighter... but no one needs all 5th gen fighters so it is not actually a big deal.

    This is why no one takes you seriously all those statements are so out of touch with reality it baffling.

    Sounds more rational and sensible than you. Because by not agreeing, you are suggesting the solution is an enormous increase in production of ships and subs to try to match the US and China and NATO... which is pretty stupid.

    The primary purpose of the Russian Navy is to defend Russian waters and the forces they have now I really don't see anyone attacking them... even the much vaunted super US navy. Nor do I see any conflict from China.

    They r modernizing many ships & subs that otherwise would be scrapped, had they been able to build new 1s on schedule & on budget!

    And they could have blundered ahead with stupid programmes like LCS and the Zumwalt class and been in even deeper shit... at the moment they are not really short of ships, and once the problems have been solved they will have the right ships for the jobs they want to do.

    In contrast, since 1991, despite all the ongoing local wars & deployments, the USN deactivated a CVN, decommissioned 9 CGNs, 5 CGs, 27 SSNs & dozens of many other ships:

    Yep, the USN is still an ugly money sucking bloated imperial navy of brutality and violence... but really don't understand what that has to do with the Russian Navy.

    Excluding SSBNs, all of the above could form a fleet larger than the corresponding classes in the active VMF!

    And even if they kept them in service it still would not be enough to successfully invade Russia by sea, which makes you wonder what they are thinking...

    In the US, they build a lot of expensive high tech ships & subs that get decommissioned early not just to reduce the fleet, but mostly to make room for more expensive new ships & subs, incl. new classes, wasting a lot of $. Still, they can afford to do it!

    Which is just what Eehie said....
    Early scrapping only makes sense for reduction of the fleet. Otherwise is a bad business in economical sense.

    The fact that they use it to line the pockets of corrupt billionaires who should be locked up for their criminality is amusing, but the real point is that the US can't afford it.

    When the US dollar is no longer the international currency they will have to earn their money...

    In Russia, they build fewer & less advanced ships & subs, of more classes, wasting $ & time, & having to convert/modernize them to keep them active longer as there isn't much to replace them with.

    What?
    Lets compare the Gorshkov Frigates with the super advanced super high tech mass produced US equivalent... LCS...

    Gorshkov basically has the equivalent of the AEGIS system... what does LCS have?

    Do I need to continue?

    I will admit that the Zumwalt is on the water while the Lider is on paper, but as long as each Lider class destroyer is less than 7.5 billion dollars each they should be OK...

    Even though Russia doesn't need as many ships & subs as the USN has, her fleets r widely separated & need to be self-sustaining w/o having to depend so much on transfers between themselves.

    That is why they are concentrating on multi role ships.

    It is also why they are getting the designs right before putting in the big orders.

    Plus, her icebreaker fleet must be maintained, operated & renewed, not to mention the Coast Guard. It's an uphill battle!

    Icebreakers and coast guard fleets have nothing to do with the Russian Navy and are actually doing fine.

    I have better idea: how about they just swallow their unearned pride and order several dozen frigates from Chinese? They just need blank ships with hulls and engines,they can install local weapons and sensors themselves.

    Fuck China... give the contracts to American companies... make the contracts for at least 100 billion... that should give them about 10 Corvettes and maybe 20 Frigates and if there is any money left 4-6 Destroyers... then they could murder someone for free in a Turkish embassy... I would pick Hilary Clinton but understand their might be some support for Madeline Allbright amongst those from Serbia...

    If the problem is production performance... giving work away to foreign countries wont fix that problem... in fact it would probably make it worse.

    Correct, starting with wasting money on carriers (yesterday's war)

    They need carriers to provide air cover for their ships. They will not be using them the way the US uses theirs.

    The barge-munition system is basically like what we seen with the containerized version of Klub, etc., except taken to another level. Nothing overly complex, high modularity, should be very quick to produce and implement, should theoretically add immense capability to existing ships.

    Not very mobile... might be useful to park off the coast of a country you are intending to attack, but away from Russian waters you would need vessels to tow the barges and to manouver them. Would be useful in rivers I suspect to launch long range cruise missiles without violating the INF treaty.

    I would suspect containerised systems could be loaded on large container ships, which would be faster and easier to send to far away places and with an enormous ship with a relatively small crew could operate for very long periods for low cost.

    Chinese diesel may break but at least it exists unlike Russian one

    Buy couple of spare engines and you are in the clear

    If the Chinese diesel engines are breaking down then Russia might as well make its own and invest in the materials and designs so they don't break down so often.

    the alternative is to keep buying chinese diesels while they try to figure out what they are doing wrong and pay for them to sort it out.

    Much better to sort it out yourself with your own products.




    Hole
    Hole

    Posts : 1777
    Points : 1777
    Join date : 2018-03-24
    Age : 42
    Location : Merkelland

    Re: Russian Navy: Status & News #4

    Post  Hole on Sun Nov 25, 2018 5:05 pm

    Well, Gorschkov is even better than Zumwalt:

    Gorschkov can use its gun.
    Gorschkov got supersonic anti-ship missiles.
    And now I´ve read that the Zumwalt will propably only receive the ESSM, which gives the Gorschkov the longer range air defence system.

    Quote:
    "Vice Admiral Barry McCullough On 31 July 2008 (deputy chief of naval operations for integration of resources and capabilities) and Allison Stiller, deputy assistant secretary of the navy for ship programs stated that "the DDG 1000 cannot perform area air defense; specifically, it cannot successfully employ the Standard Missile-2 (SM-2), SM-3 or SM-6. It is not clear if the Standard Missile capability will be integrated into the Zumwalt-class destroyer or not.
    SeigSoloyvov
    SeigSoloyvov

    Posts : 1187
    Points : 1185
    Join date : 2016-04-08

    Re: Russian Navy: Status & News #4

    Post  SeigSoloyvov on Sun Nov 25, 2018 7:11 pm

    Geez why would a Superpower need a capable blue water navy......You know you are right screw let them have their rust buckets.

    Infact screw blue water stay a brown water navy. If you are going to be a major player you need a decent navy, this is 101 shit. Stop using your biased narrow views to try and justify the lack of a navy for them.

    You know, I don't think I said Russia needs to match the size of the Us navy...hm funny how you are putting words in my mouth. I have said, Russia needs a capable blue water navy which it currently lacks. A couple of frigates aren't a capable navy. You can have all the missiles in the world, in the end, won't matter when their launch platforms get blown out of the water because you don't have sufficient strength to defend them.

    No China doesn't but doesn't change the fact the Russian navy is 3 heck at this rate India maybe surpass them soon and become three.

    Lol again trying to twist my words Garry, that's all you ever do and your terrible at it. They can have all the designs they want but unless they do something with those designs and they stay paper concepts the designs are worthless. You keep bringing up the Zum's they work just fine, there were some launch issues that were fixed. The reason the class was stopped and I've said this ANY TIMES.

    THEY VIOLATED the Nunn–McCurdy Amendment


    You ignorant Troll, I have said this over six times to you. NOW allow me to explain to you, what that Amendment is. If the cost per unit goes more than 25% beyond what was originally estimated, in this case per hull and unless it's considered to be of national security. The units are to stop being produced, The zumm's violated this, they are good and capable ships. The problem is they are far to expensive per hull. So stop trying to peddle your propaganda. I hope, I have been able to explain to you.

    New missiles aren't part of modernization xD seriously?. The launchers would be, but the vessels they did repurpose the launchers with which is few. Took ages to do. Far beyond what it should have reasonably took. Or are you that misguided you are counting ships built fresh with those launchers has modernized. Curious do you know what that word means?. Or is it once you go into "I gotta make up shit to defend russia mode" you become well less than lack of awareness of things?. I've noticed that when you come and try and white knight you make up tons of BS on the spot.

    Is Russia doing somethings right sure, are they doing things wrong dam straight. The fact you think Russia is doing no wrongs show how utterly biased and clueless you are to the problems.

    Again never said they need to match ship for ship frankly Russia can't do that, it's GDP is shit. That doesn't mean they don't need a capable blue water navy, there is a difference learn it.

    The purpose of a navy is to secure national strategic interest aboard and on your coast, You have never served in a navy in your life, don't even try and say "this is what their navy is for" your some person on the web who reads articles and thinks they know what they are talking about in purpose of the navy Laughing

    Real Russian Naval Admirals and Experts have stated time and time again they need large hull ships for their navy, they need a capable blue water navy. It doesn't need to be US sized but it needs to be a decent size to amount to anything.

    So Garry, I will take the opinions of the people who ACTUALLY lead Russia naval forces over some Arm Chair expert.
    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 1941
    Points : 1941
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Re: Russian Navy: Status & News #4

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Sun Nov 25, 2018 7:25 pm

    And even if they kept them in service it still would not be enough to successfully invade Russia by sea, which makes you wonder what they are thinking...
    The main task of the USN since the start of the Cold War & till present regarding the USSR & now the RF is to keep the SLOCs to Europe open to reinforce NATO forces there, conduct ASW/AD & airstikes, not invade. In 1941-45 war years, the German & Italian navies played only a supporting role. The U-boats operated as far as the Kara Sea but they didn't make a dent in the overall course of the war. The most exposed Russian coastline is in the North, but recent NATO exercise off Norway showed that weather alone can slow/stop them.
    Icebreakers and coast guard fleets have nothing to do with the Russian Navy and are actually doing fine.
    My point is that the $ being spend on them can't be spend on the VMF, as they all must come from the same budget. An icebreaker hull life is ~1/2 of the CV/N's; ex-VMF CG boats r old & must be replaced with either other old VMF boats &/ the new 1s.
    LMFS
    LMFS

    Posts : 1231
    Points : 1225
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    Re: Russian Navy: Status & News #4

    Post  LMFS on Mon Nov 26, 2018 12:08 am

    @SeigSoloyvov:

    I think the issue in the discussion is the perspective each person takes: some people concentrate in the things Russia is still doing wrong or not doing at all, others in the starting point after the Soviet collapse and the current improvement trend. So it can be a matter of words and personal opinions more than of substance.

    Russia wants a blue water navy, this has been stated in their strategic documents till 2050, so there is a long term plan to achieve it and I really think to discuss this is a completely moot point. But if you consider the scale of the difficulties confronted, caused by the almost total loss of industrial base, added to the difficulties the West is creating, honestly to expect much more than what we see is not being realistic. It is one thing to produce a PAK-FA when you kept developing and producing planes without gaps since the Soviet times, and a very different one to start churning out high displacement, state of the art vessels when your naval industry has spent decades essentially dead. As in a chain, it is enough that one link is weak to stop the whole process. But that does not mean that there is no progress being made at all levels, and the very moment the bottlenecks are removed you could have a complete change of scenario and see RuN grow at good pace both in numbers and in tonnage. It would be pretty short sighted IMO to dismiss this possibility because of current poor success record, ignoring the massive size of the challenge being faced and the underlying processes involved.

    Russia's GDP can maybe not be that big, but by the performance of their MIC, strategy and cost structures they compensate the 10:1 superiority of US military budget quite comfortably. Remember previous RuN budget was not spent since many programs had to be stopped, so money was there but other reasons prevented the procurement of additional vessels.
    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 1941
    Points : 1941
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Re: Russian Navy: Status & News #4

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Mon Nov 26, 2018 2:21 am

    Pl. see my post from http://www.russiadefence.net/t5541p350-russian-naval-construction-plans-and-update#241111

    At best, they'll have 2 oceanic fleets that will be "blue water" only part time; the BF, BSF & Caspian Flotilla will seldom, if ever, go farther than the Med. Sea, unless a waterway is built across Iran.
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 19905
    Points : 20457
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian Navy: Status & News #4

    Post  GarryB on Mon Nov 26, 2018 9:32 am

    Geez why would a Superpower need a capable blue water navy......You know you are right screw let them have their rust buckets.

    As gets repeated here all the time.... Russia is economically not a super power... it is Belgium, or Texas, or some such bullshit.

    Right now they have a lot of old vessels, and are working on perfecting new designs and getting them into service... there have been setbacks and hurdles... and they are dealing with those... it will take time before they put into serial production ships that would allow them to retire all their Soviets ship... hell they just returned to service a ship from Tsarist times... it was built before WWI, but it is still useful in its original role so they upgrade parts of it and use it... and why not if it does the job?

    Infact screw blue water stay a brown water navy.

    Right now their economy could not support a fully equipped modern navy with all the dressings and logistics... giving them four fleet carriers right now and they will sit tied up in port because they don't have the crew, they don't have the port infrastructure and they don't have the missions or foreign ports to operate from, or the money to pay for it all.

    Right now they are in the process of getting to the point where all the things going into their new ships are Russian, and they are putting small ships together and getting everything to work.

    The ships they actually are building are nothing like cold war corvettes.... Not even Kirov cruisers could launch conventionally armed land attack cruise missiles and take out targets 2,500km away... but their new corvettes can.

    That is not just carrying launch tubes... it is C4IR in finding targets in the first place and making sure of the targets... it is having a navigation satellite system in service, it is cooperation between services....

    You are worried because they have not built big ships... the plan was to start with small ships like Corvettes and work up... Frigates, and then Destroyers, and then Cruisers and Carriers... they should have already had two mistrals operational by now and France would have been paid for the other two they would likely have built so they could have two in the northern fleet and two in the pacific fleet... but that is Frances loss now.

    The frigates have been delayed because of engine issues and issues with the SAM setup... but then there were also likely issues with the new sensors and systems too that needed to be ironed out as well.

    For Destroyers it is likely they will go with nuke propulsion so engine issues should not be the usual ones... and the weapons systems will basically be the same but in larger numbers so most of the integration issues will already be sorted.

    For Cruiser upgrades it will be what they choose to afford, but with new cruisers it will likely come down to how many launchers will fit and are we going for arsenal ships... which could take the pressure off putting as many missiles on as you can by having missile vessels.

    But no... you keep on with the doom and gloom... the only way they will get new ships is if China makes them for them... I guess the revamp and huge upgrade of Russian shipyards was a total waste of time now they are coming online ready to make stuff... and it is not just military orders they have to work around.

    If you are going to be a major player you need a decent navy, this is 101 shit. Stop using your biased narrow views to try and justify the lack of a navy for them.

    Russia is a major military player and negotiator, but it is hardly a major economic player yet.... enormous potential, but if you blow all your funds on weapons now they might end up in the shit rather than in the money.

    You know, I don't think I said Russia needs to match the size of the Us navy...hm funny how you are putting words in my mouth.

    When you compare something with something it is normally because that something is the role model for development and future choices in progress... it is how you are measuring performance...

    I have said, Russia needs a capable blue water navy which it currently lacks. A couple of frigates aren't a capable navy. You can have all the missiles in the world, in the end, won't matter when their launch platforms get blown out of the water because you don't have sufficient strength to defend them.

    Of course it does... its future chances of growth are with the rest of the world rather than the european countries it shares borders with that are so hostile and want to fight it at every turn. With its future across the sea it needs to be able to reach that future and for that it needs an advanced and capable navy... it will never be a huge navy, but it can be formidable none the less.

    They have created standard missile launchers, and by fitting all new vessels with those launchers it means any new missile development can be applied to all the in service ships.

    During Soviet times when they introduced a ship it had its own missile and the number of those missiles deployed had to wait while that class was built because no other ship carried that missile.

    That problem has been solved... and it will gradually be implemented as new ships enter service and old ships get upgrades.

    No China doesn't but doesn't change the fact the Russian navy is 3 heck at this rate India maybe surpass them soon and become three.

    SO WHAT IF IT DOES.

    Russia does not need to be number 1 or 2 or 3 or 300, what they need is a navy that will do the job they require for them.

    China producing enormous numbers of ships is no threat to Russia.... first of all because hypersonic missiles that scare the shit out of the US are just as effective against Chinese or Indian or French ships... the Russian Navy isn't defending Russian territory... Russian aircraft with missiles are.

    The Russian navy extends the effective reach from Russia in ways their army and air force cannot, but it is still a long way off from being a global power.

    The fact you think Russia is doing no wrongs show how utterly biased and clueless you are to the problems.

    Russia hasn't done anything I would call wrong so far considering the situation they are in and the expectations they have for their navy.

    Even if they had 10 carrier groups and operated around the planet 24/7 what difference would it make?

    They would not be any safer... in fact those kids in washington would piss their pants and launch a first strike as soon as they could in the hope of having some effect... just because the US Navy would not be number one any more...

    Not to mention such a navy would bankrupt Russia over night.

    That doesn't mean they don't need a capable blue water navy, there is a difference learn it.

    Of course.... and how many destroyers and cruisers should they have made right now before they have that many corvettes and frigates in service?

    They are having certain issues with Frigates but I am sure any destroyers or cruisers they might have built would be just fine and enter service very rapidly... no trouble at all...

    The purpose of a navy is to secure national strategic interest aboard and on your coast, You have never served in a navy in your life, don't even try and say "this is what their navy is for" your some person on the web who reads articles and thinks they know what they are talking about in purpose of the navy

    Invade Vietnam and bomb places in the Middle East is the purpose of the navy... I read it on a corn flakes packet...

    Real Russian Naval Admirals and Experts have stated time and time again they need large hull ships for their navy, they need a capable blue water navy. It doesn't need to be US sized but it needs to be a decent size to amount to anything.

    Of course they need big ships... they have old big ships and eventually they will replace them with new big ships, but do you think they should have them all right now?

    Where will they park them?

    Who will man them?

    Can they afford to equip all these vertical missile launch tubes with the thousands of new missiles they will eventually be able to carry?

    So Garry, I will take the opinions of the people who ACTUALLY lead Russia naval forces over some Arm Chair expert.

    Glad you are not being an asshole about it.... Rolling Eyes

    And BTW you are perfectly entitled to your own opinion.

    The main task of the USN since the start of the Cold War & till present regarding the USSR & now the RF is to keep the SLOCs to Europe open to reinforce NATO forces there, conduct ASW/AD & airstikes, not invade.

    For the entire cold war those tomahawk cruise missiles had no anti ship capability.... why did they carry all of those?

    And why did US carriers have F-14s and Phoenix missiles intended to deal with Backfires if they were going to be protecting SLOC from the US to europe in the atlantic ocean, not to mention the deep strike aircraft like the Intruder?

    The most exposed Russian coastline is in the North, but recent NATO exercise off Norway showed that weather alone can slow/stop them.

    Russia just needs to send oil tankers... the NATO fleet will be sunk and there will be enough oil to heat the party afterwards...

    My point is that the $ being spend on them can't be spend on the VMF, as they all must come from the same budget. An icebreaker hull life is ~1/2 of the CV/N's; ex-VMF CG boats r old & must be replaced with either other old VMF boats &/ the new 1s.

    The money for Icebreakers and border patrol don't come from the Russian navy budget... border patrol is FSB or MVD or something and the icebreakers are also a separate command stream.

    Russia wants a blue water navy, this has been stated in their strategic documents till 2050, so there is a long term plan to achieve it and I really think to discuss this is a completely moot point.

    Long term plan is like too long... we want big impressive ships now to drool over.... its not fair.... clown

    @LMFS... you are just making excuses... all of the Russian Navy need to be fired... like right now... public execution style because we worked out the problems just after they became apparent to anyone, but we didn't make the decisions that we can now see in retrospect would not have been ideal... heads must roll... because we are military professionals and we have built lots of cruisers and aircraft carriers and we live next door to the Ukraine so we know exactly what we are talking about... opps... sorry SS I am putting words into your mouth again that you never actually said... clown

    At best, they'll have 2 oceanic fleets that will be "blue water" only part time; the BF, BSF & Caspian Flotilla will seldom, if ever, go farther than the Med. Sea, unless a waterway is built across Iran.

    They could start burning fossil fuels again and hope global warming creates a blue water sea over europe...

    Sponsored content

    Re: Russian Navy: Status & News #4

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Thu Mar 21, 2019 1:55 pm