Questions Thread: Russian Navy

Benya wrote:

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

Sovs are dead ship. They don't even use them. For joint exercices they send slavas or udalois. They should replace them the faster they can by gorshkovs or 21956 destroyers. Chinese sovs on the other hand are newer with better engines and electronics, upgraded with VLS. Very good ships. Russians ones are too old to be modernized.

Udaloys are good, they could give them Urans for anti ship capabilities. Udaloys II is very good but just 1 is in service.

Slavas and kirivs are good but they have few of them. Thzy need frigates and destroyer to go with them.

franco wrote:There are plans or talks to do a upgrade and life extension of some / all of the Udaloy's but have heard nothing in regards to the Sovremmeny. By the way I believe only 3 of them are still active (North, Baltic and Pacific). Would not be surprised if the Gorshkovs actually replace them.

Last I looked it appeared that:
Bystryy - Pacific Fleet
Nastoychivyy - Baltic Fleet
Admiral Ushakov - Northern Fleet

Burnyy - Pacific Fleet (Currently being overhauled, not a deep modernization)
Bespokiynyy - Baltic Fleet (Limited talk of bringing it back with I imagine, minor overhaul to extend life, not deep modernization)
Bezboyaznennyy - Pacific Fleet (Reserve, no updates on decomission or plans to reintroduce it)

Based on the fact they certainly don't appear to be investing in them this late in the game my guess is indeed they'll be simply be maintained as placeholders to fill the ranks until a sufficient number of Gorshkovs and others (Grigorovichs etc) can relieve them somewhat..

DasVivo wrote:

franco wrote:There are plans or talks to do a upgrade and life extension of some / all of the Udaloy's but have heard nothing in regards to the Sovremmeny. By the way I believe only 3 of them are still active (North, Baltic and Pacific). Would not be surprised if the Gorshkovs actually replace them.

Last I looked it appeared that:
Bystryy - Pacific Fleet
Nastoychivyy - Baltic Fleet
Admiral Ushakov - Northern Fleet

Burnyy - Pacific Fleet (Currently being overhauled, not a deep modernization)
Bespokiynyy - Baltic Fleet (Limited talk of bringing it back with I imagine, minor overhaul to extend life, not deep modernization)
Bezboyaznennyy - Pacific Fleet (Reserve, no updates on decomission or plans to reintroduce it)

Based on the fact they certainly don't appear to be investing in them this late in the game my guess is indeed they'll be simply be maintained as placeholders to fill the ranks until a sufficient number of Gorshkovs and others (Grigorovichs etc) can relieve them somewhat..

But there will never be enough gorshkovs to replace them before 2030 and the grigoroviches are much weaker than them. The Grigoroviches are there to replace the neustrashimy and burevestniks, not full blown destroyers.

Why? There will be atleast 8 Gorshkovs by 2030 (maybe more, including the larger variant), and probably 1 or 2 Liders aswell.

But there will never be enough gorshkovs to replace them before 2030 and the grigoroviches are much weaker than them. The Grigoroviches are there to replace the neustrashimy and burevestniks, not full blown destroyers.

In terms of capabilities grigorovivitch are better than a ship that is 30 years old. The only point where it is not is th range. For the price of 1 Sov you have 3 grigorovitchs. Missile are by far better because they are newer, it is stealth and has UKSK for multi role missions.

What is the watch system onboard Russian Navy ships?

Are ship launched Anti-Sub missiles near useless?

They seem to have an insufficient range to destroy detected subs and there's no enough ships equipped with them to scour enough sea area. Also most subs have torpedos with a larger range than anti-sub missiles. Even Russia's 650mm torp has longer range(~100km) than the klub antisub missile(~40km). Also, most US subs can simply lob 100s of harpoons far beyond the range of them. Not even the rastrub has enough range. The only way for ships to reliably hunt down subs before they can unload their weapons seems to be by helicopter. Therefore, the existence of dedicated anti-sub ships like the udaloy was unjustified since helicopters launched from conventional warships are far more effective.

KomissarBojanchev wrote:They seem to have an insufficient range to destroy detected subs and there's no enough ships equipped with them to scour enough sea area. Also most subs have torpedos with a larger range than anti-sub missiles. Even Russia's 650mm torp has longer range(~100km) than the klub antisub missile(~40km). Also, most US subs can simply lob 100s of harpoons far beyond the range of them. Not even the rastrub has enough range. The only way for ships to reliably hunt down subs before they can unload their weapons seems to be by helicopter. Therefore, the existence of dedicated anti-sub ships like the udaloy was unjustified since helicopters launched from conventional warships are far more effective.

It is still better than torpedos because the missile will fall just near the target and the little torpedo will have to make a run of some seconds to reach the sub. The engagement will last 2 or 3 minutes while firing a torpedo at 100 km will take 1h to reach the target so the target will have 1 hours to take evasive actions and torpedos are noisy so detecting them is easy for trained crew.

Its is also faster than helicopters.

Just like missiles, torpedos are not lunched at max range because they will have to manoeuvre to hit the target because the target will change its way when it detect the lunch.

I think they gave a 40 km to the kalibr because it is the max detection range against subs for a ship. If they want to engage further they have helicopters.

KomissarBojanchev wrote:They seem to have an insufficient range to destroy detected subs and there's no enough ships equipped with them to scour enough sea area. Also most subs have torpedos with a larger range than anti-sub missiles. Even Russia's 650mm torp has longer range(~100km) than the klub antisub missile(~40km). Also, most US subs can simply lob 100s of harpoons far beyond the range of them. Not even the rastrub has enough range. The only way for ships to reliably hunt down subs before they can unload their weapons seems to be by helicopter. Therefore, the existence of dedicated anti-sub ships like the udaloy was unjustified since helicopters launched from conventional warships are far more effective.

Subs can't attack that easy! They must be in the right position and correct tactic is needed. After a attack their position is revealed and subs are not that fast. Main problem is...subs can't defend really against air threats and small fast ships. So the sub becomes the prey.

Surface ships have better sensors to scan a wide area, subs are limited to data input or their own sensors. Subs still are great combatants, with special role..nuclear triad, sneak behind enemy lines and attack convoys, surprise against a unwary opponent etc.

And yes that's correct...best way to hunt subs are helicopter. That's why most bigger ships have a helipad.

With Klub the first a sub will know it is under attack is when a torpedo splashes into the water near the sub and starts scanning for it.

For that sub to attack that ship means firing a torpedo which will more than likely be detected during the time it will take to get to the target...

Longer range ballistic anti sub missiles don't exist because detecting enemy subs at longer range is just so unlikely unless they start actively pinging or launch weapons...

At mach 2.5 an anti sub missile is actually rather fast... and silent to those underwater...

In addition to the former post from GarryB, once a sub has launched one or more torpedoes against a target, an ASW missile is the best way to engage the sub promptly, while decoys and ASW mortars like the RBU-6000 and rbu-12000 try to take out the torpedoes.

In order to maximize the chance to break through the target's decoys noise, the sub should try to give the torpedoes updates from its own sensors through the tethering wire, and even a hard port or a fast dive to evade an incoming ASW torpedo could snap the wire forcing the torpedo to rely on its own sensors only, in turn easing countermeasures' job..

Obviously, a tethered ASW torpedo will always have an higher KP because guided/assisted by the better sensors of the launching platform, but nothing would engage faster than a missile-borne ASW torpedo.

The only better case would be of an incompetent Sub's Commander choosing to launch torpedoes when an ASW Heli happens to be just above his head.

By the way, there is no SSN able to launch dozen of harpoon at a time.

Those subs would be VLS equipped SSGNs, whose mission is not to engage a surface target unless for self-defense or if such target is of strategic value with no SSNs at hand.

Everyone

I'm looking for any information I can find about how Russian ships are organized and operate. I've been looking into how the Russian Navy handle damage control and weapons firing/tracking aboard ship. I'm interested on how they do it and who does it. All I have been able to find so far has only talked about Russian strategic tactics and that is not what I am looking for.

I would much appreciate any sources anyone can give me.

Thanks.

T

It is a forum rule that your first post should be an introduction in the intro and rules section.

Too late for you now, but please take the time to create a new thread in the introductions and rules section to introduce yourself... you might also want to take the time to skim through the rules and perhaps the intros of some of the members so you know who you are talking to.

Garry - thanks - sorry. I had every intention of posting on the forum but had to step away from my computer and never got back to it.

I have already read the rules and posted in the introduction area.

T

Here is an example of what I am looking for.

Damage control organization.

The US Navy ships are organized with damage control responsibilities set up with Damage Controlmen overall responsible for damage control and others assisting the damage controlmen as secondary responsibilities.

Damage control is broken down into damage control parties designated 1,3,5,etc. who has specific responsibilities. These damage control parties are supervised by damage control men (with officers involved) but manned by other crew. These parties are responsible for primary damage control with other people being pulled from the ranks as people are hurt/killed, become tired, damage becomes too much for the primary damage control teams to handle,etc.

The entire ship's damage control systems is run by an officer whose only job is damage control - the DCA (damage control assistant). He is the assistant to the Chief Engineer and his entire job is to be in complete control of everything aboard ship related to damage control. The ship has a space specifically for the control of damage control (Damage Control Central) and the DCA is there during all GQ's.

In the case of extreme emergency, anyone not directly involved with either fighting the ship or moving the ship would be involved with damage control.

The US Navy obviously trains damage controlmen the most in damage control with the damage control parties getting a bit less, and then general crew a bit less than that. But all hands are trained in at least minimal damage control activities as collateral duties along-side of their regular duties.

The also have DC Maintenance men whose other collateral job includes keeping the ship's damage control equipment in good shape. These people may or may not be on damage control parties - they simply keep the equipment in their respective departments in good shape.

So I am wondering if the Russian Navy or the Soviet Navy organized their damage control that way as well? How is it different. I just read the conscripted sailors are being removed from Russian Navy ships so how has that changed the way the ships are run?

Thanks to anyone who can assist me.

T

The RT documentary series The Baltic Fleet may be of some use? ep1 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XhCGtc4kWDQ
Has a bunch of footage of them doing stuff onboard.
I seem to recall some commentary that its a very staged thing & a bunch of it seems really odd so take with a handful of salt.

Several of the Military Acceptance episodes include footage of damage control exercises too but I'm not gonna go hunting through them.

Gents, what's the possibility that The Lider will have Peresvet laser point defense system.

It would be rather sensible for larger Russian vessels to get laser missile defence systems.

In fact the west claimed that the Frunze in the Kirov class actually had laser weapons in the mid 1980s when she entered service, but those claims were never substantiated AFAIK.

Such a laser weapon would be a quick way of dealing with IIR guided anti ship missiles like NSM.

Backman wrote:This probably has a thread but I can't find it.
Why hasn't Russia traded back its Mistral helicopter carriers from Egypt ? Why not. Would there be diplomatic consequences?

Just make an under the table deal to get them back. Can Egypt even afford to do anything with them ?

Egypt can't sell them without french agreement. They would be sued and would pay billion.

Rusdia would use them untill they need to be check in shipyard and only french can do it.

And besides they were crappy ships, so the VMF was rather relieved by losing them

LMFS wrote:And besides they were crappy ships, so the VMF was rather relieved by losing them

Not so crappy. They ordered them.

Sure if you compare them to kirovs they are crappy but if you compare them to other russian landing ships they are better than anything else.

Isos wrote:

LMFS wrote:And besides they were crappy ships, so the VMF was rather relieved by losing them

Not so crappy. They ordered them.

Sure if you compare them to kirovs they are crappy but if you compare them to other russian landing ships they are better than anything else.

Well they were under-armed, and needed to be treated for Artic/Sub-Arctic conditions. Ideally IMO the new landing ships should have an element of ice-breaking ability built in to the stern.