Questions Thread: Russian Navy

George1 wrote:

AlfaT8 wrote:

George1 wrote:Here are the specifications in the Rosoboronexport catalog

http://roe.ru/eng/catalog/naval-systems/surface-ships-ships-and-boats/korsar/

Thx man, i noticed something odd in this catalog, according to the catalog the Grigorovich doesn't have Sigma it uses something called Trebovanie-M, while the Gepard 3.9 does use Sigma??

Is this the same with the domestic variant of the Grigorovich?

Yes the same type of ship. Concerning the battle management system i have noticed in some cases that is offered either Trebovanie-M or Sigma, for example for 22356 export project:
http://www.oaoosk.ru/en/products/project-22356

How strange.
Its optional, i guess.

The KORSAR project is the unfinished 3rd Neustrashymy class frigate TAMAN.
The Russian Navy does not want it. Construction of the Taman was halted. The ship was launched at Yantar (Kaliningrad) in incomplete form. It is offered for export in various configurations all under the name KORSAR.
No buyer was found. The unfinished ship will be scrapped.

Quick question, has there been any discussion on going for a more Nuclear navy structure?
After seeing the supposed new Gorshkov destroyer, i have wondered whether it is wise to limit such a ship with conventional propulsion.
Looking at the Soviet navy regarding this, it looks like they weren't really interested in a nuclear navy, since most Soviet ships used gas/steam turbines with the exception of the Kirov-class.
What do you guys think?

With a large fleet like the Soviets had, the cost was the main factor.

New modern compact NPPs on the other hand that are designed to operate for 20-30 years without needing refuelling should make it much more sensible and cheaper operationally to use in larger vessels.

AFAIK the destroyer sized vessels have been shown in conventional and NPP powered models.

AFAIK cruiser and carrier sized vessels were always intended to be nuclear powered.

The Kirov was a testbed, the Slava class was the conventional backup.

The Kirov lacked a powerful enough NPP so it used a combined conventional nuke propulsion system.

The new NPP system is powerful enough to operate on its own for the new ships.

The Soviets designed purpose built vessels... so despite both being similar size the Udaloy and Sovremmeny class destroyers had totally different systems from the ground up including weapons, propulsion, and sensors.

For the Russian Navy their new destroyers will have universal launchers so they can carry anti sub weapons (like the Udaloy SS-N-14, but better) and anti ship weapons (like the Sovremmeny SS-N-22 sunburn, but better) and also land attack missiles (Kalibr... which previous Soviet Destroyers had no equivalent of).

they will also have unified sensor suite to use the different weapon types and unified propulsion systems too...

BTW LSOS is correct... there comes a size where NPP makes no sense except with subs... small nuke subs are quite handy.

GarryB wrote:small nuke subs are quite handy.

How small? Kilo? Or Sierra?

Losharik actually,

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

...but Alpha is also a small nuke, but Kilo is an SSK. (Sierra is not that small).

I don't know where to ask this question, so I will just ask it here.

Is the twin barrel naval coalition gun canceled? Was it ever really a thing?
I haven't seen it on any of the models like super Gorshkov or Leader clas ships witch would be big enought for sutch a gun.

tomazy wrote:I don't know where to ask this question, so I will just ask it here.

Is the twin barrel naval coalition gun canceled? Was it ever really a thing?
I haven't seen it on any of the models like super Gorshkov or Leader clas ships witch would be big enought for sutch a gun.

Well, it is planned to be equipped on Lider cruisers, or even on Admiral Nakhimov.

(Take the word "planned" with a grain of salt, as there is not much info about this)

AFAIK it was developed together with the army so it was a joint Army Navy programme.

The use of the system by both arms of the military makes a lot of sense to reduce costs and improve commonality.

The main reason the land based Coalition lost its second gun was height and weight restrictions with transport aircraft.

Removing one gun also removed the dual loading system for the second gun and the stabilisation and aiming equipment it would use.

For a naval vessel the second gun would increase the rate of fire and not be much of a problem otherwise.

It was designed for large cruisers, so it remains to be seen if it gets fitted to upgraded Kirov class vessels or the new cruisers they are planning to build.

For a while the Soviets put their Sverdlov class ships into service for the naval gunfire support potential of its 152mm gun batteries, so it could be potentially fitted to a few different types for the purpose of supporting a landing.

A dedicated gun support vessel would be rather interesting too.

In terms of usefulness with two turrets with four guns firing 12 shells per minute per turret with 70km range projectiles with guided round accuracy of a few metres I would say it would be rather useful to support a landing, though rather cheaper to use Su-33s and dumb bombs for inland targets.

GarryB wrote:~Snip~
In terms of usefulness with two turrets with four guns firing 12 shells per minute per turret with 70km range projectiles with guided round accuracy of a few metres I would say it would be rather useful to support a landing, though rather cheaper to use Su-33s and dumb bombs for inland targets.

Naturally though not only does one get a certain flexibility but also unlike Aircraft such a platform likely offers benefits that are perhaps a little more 'All Weather' and indeed I guess sustained

How easily could the s-300 revolver launchers on the kirovs, slavas and udaloys be modified to fire S400s of the same size?

Isos wrote:

KomissarBojanchev wrote:How easily could the s-300 revolver launchers on the kirovs, slavas and udaloys be modified to fire S400s of the same size?

Nothing to change in the lunchers I think. But all the softwares, computers and radars have to be changed. Udaloys hasn't got S-300. It carries naval Tor with very small VLS.

It's a shame they didn't put S-300 at least on the Udaloy II. But the tactic was to use them with Slavas (S-300) and Sovrommenys (naval Buk) so they it is an integrated air defenece like army has. Tor is very good at intercepting cruisse missiles and anti ship missiles that would have been the job of the Udaloys while Sovremenys and Slava would intercept fighters and bombers. At the time they had 20 of each, 3 slava and 4 Kirov with 7 more Slavas to be build. Now Gorshkov class replace all of them and instade of having 15 Udaloy and 15 Sov you can have 30 Gorshkov with much better weapons.

Then what are the 4 lids on the bow of the udaloys?Also then upgrading to S400s shouldnt take long since not that much crap needs to be removed and replaced. It would be great if the slavas get S400s. Thats because its completely impossible for Tussia to build more than 5 gorshkovs and put them into service in less than 40 years.

Isos wrote:

Then what are the 4 lids on the bow of the udaloys?Also then upgrading to S400s shouldnt take long since not that much crap needs to be removed and replaced. It would be great if the slavas get S400s. Thats because its completely impossible for Tussia to build more than 5 gorshkovs and put them into service in less than 40 years.

Naval tor. They also have lunchers at mid-ship near the helicopter hangar for a total of 64 missiles. Nakhimov will have S-400. Slava not likely they never said anything about that but it wouldn't be hard for them to upgrade them and why not buy the Ukrainian one and put Oniks lunchers and S-400 on it for a total of 4 Slavas and 2 upgraded Kirov.

I think the answer to that is quite clearly that A) The ships going to the breakers and that B) Ukraine would literally rather cut off their nose to spite their face when it comes to Russia

DasVivo wrote:.............
I think the answer to that is quite clearly that A) The ships going to the breakers and that B) Ukraine would literally rather cut off their nose to spite their face when it comes to Russia

Also, C) Russia said long before 2014 that they have no plans whatsoever to go anywhere near that pile of scrap metal.

Isos wrote:

Then what are the 4 lids on the bow of the udaloys?Also then upgrading to S400s shouldnt take long since not that much crap needs to be removed and replaced. It would be great if the slavas get S400s. Thats because its completely impossible for Tussia to build more than 5 gorshkovs and put them into service in less than 40 years.

Naval tor. They also have lunchers at mid-ship near the helicopter hangar for a total of 64 missiles. Nakhimov will have S-400. Slava not likely they never said anything about that but it wouldn't be hard for them to upgrade them and why not buy the Ukrainian one and put Oniks lunchers and S-400 on it for a total of 4 Slavas and 2 upgraded Kirov.

The Russian navy should expect the slavas to be operational for at least 40 more years because all russian shipbuilders have proven themselves to be utterly incapable of building anything other than diesel subs snd corvettes within scceptable timeframes. When Russia can build liders in less than 4 years(a long time from now)then we can talk about scrapping slavas. Otherwise they should be upgraded mandatorily with S400s and UKSKs if possible ASAP.

KomissarBojanchev wrote:

Isos wrote:

Then what are the 4 lids on the bow of the udaloys?Also then upgrading to S400s shouldnt take long since not that much crap needs to be removed and replaced. It would be great if the slavas get S400s. Thats because its completely impossible for Tussia to build more than 5 gorshkovs and put them into service in less than 40 years.

Naval tor. They also have lunchers at mid-ship near the helicopter hangar for a total of 64 missiles. Nakhimov will have S-400. Slava not likely they never said anything about that but it wouldn't be hard for them to upgrade them and why not buy the Ukrainian one and put Oniks lunchers and S-400 on it for a total of 4 Slavas and 2 upgraded Kirov.

The Russian navy should expect the slavas to be operational for at least 40 more years because all russian shipbuilders have proven themselves to be utterly incapable of building anything other than diesel subs snd corvettes within scceptable timeframes. When Russia can build liders in less than 4 years(a long time from now)then we can talk about scrapping slavas. Otherwise they should be upgraded mandatorily with S400s and UKSKs if possible ASAP.

40 years? I am very critical of the Russian navy but even I would say 40 years is a silly claim to say the least.

The revolving launchers of the S-300 system on the Kirovs is rather redundant and takes up rather more space than is needed... the S-400 in the form of a vertical launch system with fixed cells would be more compact and more reliable as there is no moving parts.

The old S-300 system was designed that way to crew could access and inspect the missiles from below decks... the new models have built in diagnostic systems and could remain in their cells till launch.

Equally with the old TOR system the new missiles are much smaller... on the old TOR land vehicle it carried 8 ready to fire missiles in its turret... the upgraded late model missile had twice that many... 16 missiles in the same sized turret.

I would expect with the new missiles the 64 tubes could be replaced with 128 tubes fairly easily.

The Udaloy and Sovremmeny are difficult to upgrade with UKSK as the old missiles are heavily angled while the UKSK is not and is better penetrating the deck space 4-6 levels worth.

Perhaps putting a hull extension could be an option, while replacing all the old material on board with new equipment should free up a lot of space internally.

New sensors will be multifunction and should also take up rather less space too.

GarryB wrote:The Udaloy and Sovremmeny are difficult to upgrade with UKSK as the old missiles are heavily angled while the UKSK is not and is better penetrating the deck space 4-6 levels worth.

Perhaps putting a hull extension could be an option, while replacing all the old material on board with new equipment should free up a lot of space internally.

New sensors will be multifunction and should also take up rather less space too.

Just my 2 cents,

The Udaloys will probably not see a major upgrade on their air defense because of the cost an time restraints, this is a fleet that will not server for more than another 10 years effectively, and that probably does not include all of them.

The Tor system is a good system, fast, accurate and small, build to defend against small, sea skimming missiles, they just need to upgraded it as best as they can, new missiles with more resistance to jamming and better maneuverability and better sensors so more targets can be targeted or at least more accurately, 64 missiles total is plenty.

As far as I understand it, each FC/tracking radar (two of them total) can target 4 targets (with 2 missile for each) or guide 4 missiles, does somebody know which one is right?

Now the thing that they can upgrade is, firstly, the main gun, remove the two 100 mm guns, replace the first one with the 130 mm gun like the one on the Adm. Gorskov. and instead of the second one put at leas 2 UKSK modules.

The Udaloy is a big ship, the platform where the second gun stands is rather larger, practically there is room for at least 4 UKSK modules, more importantly the gun that it there is a weapon that already penetrates the interior of the ship so there already is a "hole" there, presumably all cables, pipes etc. are routed away from this place, so this could be enlarged for at least 2-3 UKSK with not much work.

At this point they don't even need the launchers on the side, especially if they put more than 2 UKSKs.

Good point miroslav

GarryB wrote:The Udaloy and Sovremmeny are difficult to upgrade with UKSK as the old missiles are heavily angled while the UKSK is not and is better penetrating the deck space 4-6 levels worth.

Perhaps putting a hull extension could be an option, while replacing all the old material on board with new equipment should free up a lot of space internally.

New sensors will be multifunction and should also take up rather less space too.

I personally don't think that Udaloys or Sovremenniys will see large scale modernizations (or maybe just a little bit) for the following reasons:

1.) There are around 5 Sovremenniys and 6 Udaloys in service, most of them are older than 30 years.

2.) Sovremenniys were plagued with lots of issues with their propulsion systems, and developing a new would take additional time, while putting them into production would somewhat bog down current engine productions (at NPO Saturn for Gorshkovs or at Zvezda for Karakurts).

3.) Combat readiness of both will be costlier and costlier to upkeep over time.

4.) Equipping both classes with UKSKs would make little sense as by 2025 there would be around 6-7 Gorshkovs in service, and they could take on their duties for a while until a new destroyer class emerges.

5.) Maybe or maybe not, these ships are not really of great strategic importance like Kirovs or Slavas. And don't get me wrong here, by this I don't mean that destroyers are less significant than cruisers, I only want to point out that these destroyers could serve 8-10 years from now just fine.

In conclusion, I think that both current destroyer classes should serve until let's say early 2030s