Russian Naval Construction Plans and Statistics Update

eehnie wrote:

Tsavo Lion wrote:But even if it is, there's a grain of truth: Russia has under capacity in shipbuilding, while China has overcapacity, evidenced of the speed of her naval buildup in last decade. Who else is going to buy their medium/big ships? At best, u can count those countries on 1 hand!

By 2019 with the end of the upgrade in the Zvezda shipyard, I think the capacity of the Russian shipyards will be more than enough for the own Navy. Russia still will have to gain the hability of builiding some types of ships, like these of the Project 23560 and the Project 23000. This only will be assured with the end of the production of the first ship of both projects, but this is more a situation of building human capabilities than of lack of capacity. This is a situation that Russia wants to afford soon and will work hard to do it successfully by 2025 approximately.

With the big amount of ships under construction, new orders of complete ships from China seem very unlikely for me.

They should never build ship abroad. The shipyards, engine manufacturers and equipment suppliers need work. Every ship that you build abroad, even if cheap, is a loss  for the national economy.

Even simple supply ships should be built in house. Unless you have an immediate need and cannot wait (this is.not the case).

You can establish a partnership with technology exchange, if another country is.building something that you can't yet, and they are willing to cooperate, but that is the only exception. Russia is not USSR that have to.subsidize polish or other foreign shipyards...



Anyway, they have shipyards with capabilities. They need to improve quality standards, manpower, organization and management, and improve all the supply chain.

Many of the recent problems where due to issues with the suppliers (engine and weapon systems) and integration work.

Hopefully the engine issues should be solved.

In addition they should fix the design and set the requirements without changing them all the time.

And maybe use dedicated vessels or old ships for testing and integration of new weapon systems, instead of putting a lot of untested technology in the ships.

Frigates or improved gorshkov (8000t destroyer) could be build at yantar (kaliningrad),  saint peterburg (severnaya verf, and possibly admiralty shipyard), kerch shipyard, and maybe amur shipyard if they properly reorganize.

Leader class destroyers/ cruisers could be built at the baltic shipyards in saint Petersburg, where they built also the kirov class battlecruisers and they are currently building the big nuclear class icebreaker (I believe there is also a class of icebreaker called lider, just to add confusion)

Aircraft carriers could be build at zvezda shipyard in the east, as soon it completes the expansion and update work, and maybe also at severnaya verf (that is also planned  to be expanded and refurbished). In addition the kerch shipyard should be able to cope with ship up to 70000 tons.

And maybe in a few years time we will be talking about similar update and refurbishment work on all the historical shipyard in Nicolaev (where they built many of the largest ships of imperial russian navy and soviet navy), if the political situation changes (and they will have the money) ....

They r also building too many classes of ships & boats for the top brass mostly to satisfy greed of different designers & manufacturers.
Yes, in an ideal world warships & auxiliaries must be built at home but since Peter I, Russia been importing many foreign built ships, military & civilian- there's no shame in it as a lot of other countries do the same, for different reasons. Frankly, their yards can't meet the demand of the VMF & Atomflot in modernizing, repairing & new construction of submarines, warships, Arctic icebreakers & tankers/bulk carriers in the desired time frame. Hence delays, delays, & more delays.
China may also be interested in helping the RF with naval matters as they both want to keep NATO, USA & their Asian allies "at arm's length".
So, if they do order some ships in PRC, I won't be surprised at all!

SeigSoloyvov wrote:Also, the engines issues and integration work isn't the main reason why they work so slow you could at BEST give them a couple of years due tot he engines 2-3 at most, why do people keep going on with this myth.

No-one with any sense of reality would really deny the Russian shipbuilding industry has been long neglected and suffers many problems as a result, but the engine issue caused by Ukropi & HATO sanctions has been crippling in the short term. You can't build ships without engines, and no-one will lay down hulls until the engine supply issue is resolved. Its that simple, and no amount of yabbering to the contrary will change it. The first serial-produced & certified MGT will take ~5 years to hit dockside from denial of supply from Zorya-Mashproekt (which has hit frigate builds accordingly). Delays due to MTU diesels are less, but still impacted their respective vessels. Why do people keep denying this simple truth?

SeigSoloyvov wrote:This is not me "hating" or being a "pro-nato fanboy"

With all due respect, we will be judge of that, and you're not exactly free of bias or agenda (truth be told, who is?).

Kuznetsov could still be used for training.

When you are talking about an old model tank worth maybe 800K dollars, then keeping it and training on it make sense as it reduces wear and tear on the newer models, but with a carrier costing billions, it needs to be able to actually work.

The K, with upgrades should be able to be a useful vessel, in terms of training, experience, and operational use, but I would expect by 2040 when a fourth new carrier is being put into service the K can retire...

If there is a demand, there'll be ready supply!

Having an enormous navy right now with Frigates and Destroyers and Cruisers and a few carriers would be of no use to Russia... right now, or in the next decade... they simply don't have a use for it yet and the extra burden of costs would be crippling to the things they actually do need.

Even worse, getting china to build military ships for the Russian navy is spending money on Chinese shipyards... if current Russian shipyards can't do the job it makes rather more sense to look into the reasons for that and dealing with them than sending the money to China or anywhere else.

This indicates that despite scrapping programs deemed too expensive – notably the Leader-class destroyer and Storm aircraft carrier program – the Kremlin is moving ahead with a very ambitious naval upgrade.

Just because they decide this or that programme is not suitable does not mean they will simply have no destroyer or carrier sized vessels in their fleet in the future.

They are not the US and are not forced to buy the most expensive white elephant that their MIC can push for max profit... No Zumwalts for Russia...

But even if it is, there's a grain of truth: Russia has under capacity in shipbuilding, while China has overcapacity, evidenced of the speed of her naval buildup in last decade. Who else is going to buy their medium/big ships? At best, u can count those countries on 1 hand!

The solution is to deal with the problems at home, not export work for your military... and it has nothing to do with China. This is about Russian companies providing for the defence of Russia. Short term stopgaps of buying some engines is OK... no point in stopping all production just because the Ukrainians are ass holes and the Germans need permission from the US to sell products to Russia.

By 2019 with the end of the upgrade in the Zvezda shipyard, I think the capacity of the Russian shipyards will be more than enough for the own Navy.

Exactly.... they are spending big money upgrading shipyards... and they are not going to be building thousands of ships... why would you get China to build 12 destroyers... when you are also spending big money to upgrade Russian shipyards to build them too... by the time the shipyards are ready to start production the Chinese would already have built them... stupid.

You can establish a partnership with technology exchange, if another country is.building something that you can't yet, and they are willing to cooperate, but that is the only exception. Russia is not USSR that have to.subsidize polish or other foreign shipyards...

x2

Now you can make excuses and pretend there are no problems or you can admit there are problems and fix them. I prefer fixing the problem rather than letting it get out of hand and the Russian shipbuilding industry has let it gotten WAY out of hand.

This is not me "hating" or being a "pro-nato fanboy"

It is whining and complaining and thinking you know better that is the issue.

The Russian Navy will have zero effect in any real confrontation with the US, so whether it has one carrier or 20 it makes no real difference... in fact having 20 carriers would bankrupt the country so it is just as well they haven't been introducing 10 Frigates and 5 destroyers a year for the past 5 years...

They r also building too many classes of ships & boats for the top brass mostly to satisfy greed of different designers & manufacturers.

Of course... but why didn't you tell them which design would work well and which one wouldn't before they built them?

Nobody has powers of seeing the future... otherwise there would not have been VSTOL F-35s, or Zumwalts... when everyone stops making mistakes then you can criticise the Russian Navy (it is not the shipbuilders that decide what gets made and what does not).

Frankly, their yards can't meet the demand of the VMF & Atomflot in modernizing, repairing & new construction of submarines, warships, Arctic icebreakers & tankers/bulk carriers in the desired time frame. Hence delays, delays, & more delays.

There are plenty of yards... and name a western producer of ships that does not have delays?

China may also be interested in helping the RF with naval matters as they both want to keep NATO, USA & their Asian allies "at arm's length".

Building a navy for Russia would not be helping anyone but China...

No-one with any sense of reality would really deny the Russian shipbuilding industry has been long neglected and suffers many problems as a result, but the engine issue caused by Ukropi & HATO sanctions has been crippling in the short term. You can't build ships without engines, and no-one will lay down hulls until the engine supply issue is resolved. Its that simple, and no amount of yabbering to the contrary will change it. The first serial-produced & certified MGT will take ~5 years to hit dockside from denial of supply from Zorya-Mashproekt (which has hit frigate builds accordingly). Delays due to MTU diesels are less, but still impacted their respective vessels. Why do people keep denying this simple truth?

The US has been anti Russian for the last decade or so, yet despite having examples of Russian rocket engines in their possession, and also the full plans to make them it has been estimated it will take the US until 2028 before they can produce an equivalent... but I shouldn't mention that should I... after all making engines is easy... didn't they see it coming... could they have not anticipated problems of supply... it was stupid of them to rely on Russian engines in the first place right?

There's a symbiotic relationship between economy & navy:
a strong economy produces a strong navy which in turn helps the economy to function better by protecting state's interests on the high & littoral seas i.e. defending trade, transportation, EEZs, etc.
To get financing, their yards peddle ships & subs abroad (like the French) to be able to afford new construction for their own aging mostly Soviet era navy that aspires to be #2. If it's so export oriented, getting there is a tall order indeed, IMO. How pathetic!
But, Russia doesn't need so much $ to spare: she can reduce railroad transit fees, lease more agricultural land on favorable terms, &/ pay the Chinese with gold, oil, gas, timber, & other commodities for what they actually need now & in the near future to enable their yards modernize, expand, & concentrate on fewer ships that must be absolutely built/refitted at home.
If renewed & better equipped blue water VMF can keep the USN & other allied navies busy & at bay in the World Ocean, & sooner the better, the PRC will still benefit from it.
https://ria.ru/analytics/20180817/1526709322.html?utm_source=ria.24smi.info&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=2616&utm_content=1795561

Big_Gazza wrote:

SeigSoloyvov wrote:This is not me "hating" or being a "pro-nato fanboy"

With all due respect, we will be judge of that, and you're not exactly free of bias or agenda (truth be told, who is?).

One flavor of fanboys can't be trusted with passing judgment on other flavor of fanboys.

PapaDragon wrote:

Big_Gazza wrote:

SeigSoloyvov wrote:This is not me "hating" or being a "pro-nato fanboy"

With all due respect, we will be judge of that, and you're not exactly free of bias or agenda (truth be told, who is?).

One flavor of fanboys can't be trusted with passing judgment on other flavor of fanboys.

Yep, its a case of Pot. Kettle. Black.  Nuff said.

New german frigates are late 29 month.

Rodion_Romanovic wrote:

eehnie wrote:

Tsavo Lion wrote:But even if it is, there's a grain of truth: Russia has under capacity in shipbuilding, while China has overcapacity, evidenced of the speed of her naval buildup in last decade. Who else is going to buy their medium/big ships? At best, u can count those countries on 1 hand!

By 2019 with the end of the upgrade in the Zvezda shipyard, I think the capacity of the Russian shipyards will be more than enough for the own Navy. Russia still will have to gain the hability of builiding some types of ships, like these of the Project 23560 and the Project 23000. This only will be assured with the end of the production of the first ship of both projects, but this is more a situation of building human capabilities than of lack of capacity. This is a situation that Russia wants to afford soon and will work hard to do it successfully by 2025 approximately.

With the big amount of ships under construction, new orders of complete ships from China seem very unlikely for me.

They should never build ship abroad. The shipyards, engine manufacturers and equipment suppliers need work. Every ship that you build abroad, even if cheap, is a loss  for the national economy.

Even simple supply ships should be built in house. Unless you have an immediate need and cannot wait (this is.not the case).

You can establish a partnership with technology exchange, if another country is.building something that you can't yet, and they are willing to cooperate, but that is the only exception. Russia is not USSR that have to.subsidize polish or other foreign shipyards...



Anyway, they have shipyards with capabilities. They need to improve quality standards, manpower, organization and management, and improve all the supply chain.

Many of the recent problems where due to issues with the suppliers (engine and weapon systems) and integration work.

Hopefully the engine issues should be solved.

In addition they should fix the design and set the requirements without changing them all the time.

And maybe use dedicated vessels or old ships for testing and integration of new weapon systems, instead of putting a lot of untested technology in the ships.

Frigates or improved gorshkov (8000t destroyer) could be build at yantar (kaliningrad),  saint peterburg (severnaya verf, and possibly admiralty shipyard), kerch shipyard, and maybe amur shipyard if they properly reorganize.

Leader class destroyers/ cruisers could be built at the baltic shipyards in saint Petersburg, where they built also the kirov class battlecruisers and they are currently building the big nuclear class icebreaker (I believe there is also a class of icebreaker called lider, just to add confusion)

Aircraft carriers could be build at zvezda shipyard in the east, as soon it completes the expansion and update work, and maybe also at severnaya verf (that is also planned  to be expanded and refurbished). In addition the kerch shipyard should be able to cope with ship up to 70000 tons.

And maybe in a few years time we will be talking about similar update and refurbishment work on all the historical shipyard in Nicolaev (where they built many of the largest ships of imperial russian navy and soviet navy), if the political situation changes (and they will have the money) ....

In overall terms I agree about building not combat ships externally. The first and most important role of the Russian shipyards is to build the combat ships for the Russian Armed Forces. Even I think the auxiliary ships for the Russian Navy must be produced in the Russian shipyards, and if there is a saturation of the Russian shipyards, then, the civil companies are who must order ships abroad.

As commented with the upgrade of the Zvezda shipyard to build large ships, including the biggest aircraft carriers, the capacity of the Russian shipyards becomes complete. Limited, but complete.

As example. The other project where the noise is focused now, is the Project 23560. At the time of the Soviet Union, 3 of the current shipyards proved the capacity and the hability to build surface combat ships of the size of the Project 23560:

- Baltic shipyard, Sant Petersburg. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baltic_Shipyard
- Admiralty shipyard, Sant Petersburg. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Admiralty_Shipyard
- Sevmash shipyard, Severodvinsk. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sevmash

The phisical capacity, related to the infrastructure, very likely remains in the shipyards. The human capability, the human hability, is surely affected by lack of production in decades, but wil be restored with the production of the first unit of the project 23560. Russia has not need nor interest in building abroad this ship, Russia is just interested in restoring the habitity of producing surface combat ships of this size, and for it surely needs not investment on infrastructure, do not worry about it. Obviously the noise will continue, but with zero effect.

The attacks to the Russian Navy are not limited to the media noise. There is a strong economic war, and even military attacks (Syria and more places). As part of the economic war Russia suffered as example a block to the access of foreign components, that would kill the industry of many countries, but not the Russian industry with its low overall foreign dependence.

How can be the Russian Ministry of Defense be blamed of changing plans when they receive attacks like this block to the access of foreign components? The Russian Ministry of Defense has been forced to change plans and modify designs to include the replacement of foreign components. How can be new local designed and made components be included in the projects without modifying designs and without intense testing stages? It has not been a mistake, it has been a solution to foreign attacks. But the US fanboys and trolls care not about all this, they have other goals.

Russia is advancing successfully in the replacement of foreign  components, Russia is achieving to build new types of combat ships (recently Project 11711 and Project 22350), and with it, Russia is restoring capabilities of production and improving its military strenght and resilience. In overall terms Russia is moving forward defeating all the obstacles, for desperation of the US and Israel supporters.

Charly015 take on future sub fleet http://charly015.blogspot.com/2018/08/primer-acercamiento-al-grafico-de-la.html

14* Borey
7* Yasen
18* Husky
3* Lada
9* Kalina
12* Kilo
And a gaggle of special purpose subs.

I'd have been inclined to include Kalibrated Oscars though I guess by the time there are 18* Huskys the Oscars will be long gone.

hoom wrote:Charly015 take on future sub fleet http://charly015.blogspot.com/2018/08/primer-acercamiento-al-grafico-de-la.html

14* Borey
7* Yasen
18* Husky
3* Lada
9* Kalina
12* Kilo
And a gaggle of special purpose subs.

I'd have been inclined to include Kalibrated Oscars though I guess by the time there are 18* Huskys the Oscars will be long gone.

14 Borei, 7 Yasen and 18 Huskys? Seems very optimistic. Im going to be a very old man when all of that has been produced.

The 1st 2 classes have exactly these total #s planned:
https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9F%D0%BE%D0%B4%D0%B2%D0%BE%D0%B4%D0%BD%D1%8B%D0%B5_%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B4%D0%BA%D0%B8_%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B5%D0%BA%D1%82%D0%B0_955_%C2%AB%D0%91%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%B9%C2%BB#%D0%9F%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%B4%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B0%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BB%D0%B8

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yasen-class_submarine#Units
https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9F%D0%BE%D0%B4%D0%B2%D0%BE%D0%B4%D0%BD%D1%8B%D0%B5_%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B4%D0%BA%D0%B8_%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B5%D0%BA%D1%82%D0%B0_885_%C2%AB%D0%AF%D1%81%D0%B5%D0%BD%D1%8C%C2%BB#%D0%9F%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%B4%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B0%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BB%D0%B8_%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B5%D0%BA%D1%82%D0%B0

http://www.navyrecognition.com/index.php/news/defence-news/2018/april-2018-navy-naval-defense-news/6151-russia-s-malakhit-design-bureau-completes-husky-submarine-preliminary-design.html

..the Russians hope to bring the cost of the Husky down to a level where they can build a minimum of 16 to 20 of the attack and SSGN versions of the boat—and possibly more. https://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/russias-new-husky-class-submarine-everything-we-know-want-23804

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lada-class_submarine#Units

..the two last Lada-class Project 677 submarines will be delivered as scheduled — in 2018 and 2019. Afterwards Moscow will terminate the Project 677 Lada-class in favor of Project Kalina.
https://sputniknews.com/military/201603221036746542-russia-kalina-class-submarine/

Notice that no total Kalina # is given!
Of course plans r just plans; it remains to be seen if they stick to them. Also, some of those Ladas &/ older Kilos may be sold/scrapped/inactivated in the next decade.

Because saying I am whining and complaining stating the facts well is disrespectful is it not.

Vlad just needs to look back at your posts about the various delays and problems regarding the Russian navy, and then look at your opinions and compare those with the total absence of your posts regarding plenty of failures in the Royal Navy and US navy, and he can see... as anyone could that you troll and flamebait.

You are not just giving an opinion... you are demanding heads roll and why are they so incompetent... which is not the same thing when you don't demand heads for poor wielding in US boomer submarine missile tubes for example.

sorry to tell you but I am not biased, I give the Russians credit where it is due. and I have many a time given them credit on this website, if I was biased I would be doing no such thing.

That is a bit of a joke right?

I am not racist because there are a few niggers I can put up with.

The key hint is usually the claim of not being biased...

I, however, don't turn my eye blindly and make excuses for them when they are messing up.

The problem is a good dose of reality... a super strong enormous navy is not what Russia needs right now and your whining makes it sound like it is important that they don't have 5 brand new Destroyers being launched this year.

Right now a lot of ships would be a burden... they are upgrading shipyards and they are upgrading and improving in lots of areas... their new torpedoes seem to be rather good, which should improve the performance of the entire fleet of submarines, but you judge them on their rate of production of large ships, yet completely refuse to just the US on its production of rocket motors... a super power that can't even make its own rocket motors... imagine...

hoom wrote:Charly015 take on future sub fleet http://charly015.blogspot.com/2018/08/primer-acercamiento-al-grafico-de-la.html

14* Borey
7* Yasen
18* Husky
3* Lada
9* Kalina
12* Kilo
And a gaggle of special purpose subs.

I'd have been inclined to include Kalibrated Oscars though I guess by the time there are 18* Huskys the Oscars will be long gone.

The graphic of Charly is speculative.For the moment Hasky is only in the papers, but 18 could be reasonable thinkig in the ammount of SSN keep in the inventory in last 15 years

In the program of armament 2011-2020 were planned 8 Borey and 7 Yasen
The 8 Borey was for replace old Delta II/III or Typhoon, and complement the 6 Delta IV for reach the parity with USA of 14 SSBN
The Yasen are not not necessarily replace for all the Oscars , that by time , a decade ago was at least 9 in the inventory and in the moment of Kursk accident was 11 and at least other planned

Now a new order of 6 Borey have been planned for the new program to replace the 6 Delta IV , and is posible more Yasen will be ordered, probably 3 more , perpahps 5 to complete 12
About tye SSN , Russia is repairing Akulas for keep on operation the most posible numbers, because Huskys will gone about 2030

Russia wants to have a nuclear submarine fleet about 40-45 units, so only need build 3 submarines each 2 years as much

The one unfinished Oscar II (Belgorod) will now become the first Poseidon carrier.

SeigSoloyvov wrote:@GarryB

If you have something you need to say to me, that isn't about a topic say it in PM's this topic isn;t for you to attack people who say things you do not like even if it about russia okay. Because your attacking is reaaaaaalllly getting annoying.

To address your points.

1. The failures of the US and UK are hardly brought up when I do visit here, the problem here is you guys also like to compare faults of a new supercarrier to ones of a frigate, this aren't comparable, I think the Lirroral ships are junk btw and have said that.

I have shared my view on the F-35 which frankly I think is a subpar aircraft and The brits, the only post I ever recall seeing about their failures was that fiasco with their destroyer that went dead in the water due to the temp of the water shutting it down.

Now I post in sections about the russian's not the Brit or US.

Would you like a list of what I think they are doing wrong I can provide that.


2. Your logic is amusing, what would you say I use in place of the word bias?.

I have said, I think russians produce better, tanks, missiles, and AA along with other systems. YET I am biased.

I have openly stated removing Saddam and Ghadaffi was a goddam mistake yet I am biased according to you. You can frankly stop replying to my posts if you're going to act like that.

Calling me biased is funny, when someone brings up another nations failures to me I will mention it.

But hey I said the karakuts are good ships, the project 22160's, The Buyans. I have said the project 20386 is also a good ship

I don't know don't know what in your head bias means honestly, if it means "if you say anything negative about russia" then I guess that makes sense.

So say my words are a joke, but the joke is your logic buddy.

3. Are you ill or something? I never said the Russians need a huge navy, I have said they need four carriers yes cause they do.

I have said 60-70k carriers are good for them.

I have said they will not produce more than eight liders and they don't need that many.

I have never said they need a Us sized navy, I HAVE said they do need a decent navy to protect their interests overseas

Even Kuzin and Nikolskiy, in their famous book "Военно-морской флот СССР 1945-1991" quote that Russia needs aircraft carriers, among other ship types. What Russia needs is the balanced fleet, with sufficient number of "vympels" - ships of every kind. The first priority, as ever, are submarines. At the same time, Russia naval shipbuilding is just coming out of severe crisis, following dissolution od USSR in 1991. Still so much should be done to restore sufficient naval power. I must underline that, for instance, Karakurts and Buyans are the real "bullseye", direct hit for russian littorals. Bigger surface vessels are still to prove their merits. Use of proven hull as pr.11356FFG is the step in right direction. More to follow, e.g. Gorshkovs, and future Liders. If something catastrophic doesn`t emerge, we should see new CVN carrier also completed, somewhere about 2030.

The slow pace isn´t alone the fault of the yards. If there is no propulsion system (gas turbines) or a radar doesn´t work proberly there is little the yard can do. And the russian Navy is not in the mood to do the things it did in the 80´s, like putting ships into service without working radars.

Hole wrote:The slow pace isn´t alone the fault of the yards. If there is no propulsion system (gas turbines) or a radar doesn´t work proberly there is little the yard can do. And the russian Navy is not in the mood to do the things it did in the 80´s, like putting ships into service without working radars.

It is true, but Russia has sufficient scientific and production resources to overcome these difficulties.

SeigSoloyvov wrote:@GarryB
Even Kuzin and Nikolskiy, in their famous book "Военно-морской флот СССР 1945-1991" quote that Russia needs aircraft carriers, among other ship types. What Russia needs is the balanced fleet, with sufficient number of "vympels" - ships of every kind. The first priority, as ever, are submarines. At the same time, Russia naval shipbuilding is just coming out of severe crisis, following dissolution od USSR in 1991. Still so much should be done to restore sufficient naval power. I must underline that, for instance, Karakurts and Buyans are the real "bullseye", direct hit for russian littorals. Bigger surface vessels are still to prove their merits. Use of proven hull as pr.11356FFG is the step in right direction. More to follow, e.g. Gorshkovs, and future Liders. If something catastrophic doesn`t emerge, we should see new CVN carrier also completed, somewhere about 2030.

But Russia is not a superpoweer like USSR , the half of population a quarter of armed forces and much less influence arround the world because USSR was the head of a ideological block and today there are only bussines and economical interests


Russian Navy only need carriers for the Navy parades of 9 May and 29 July

In case of open war have no military value for Russia or the opponent, as the Bismark Battleship for III Reich
In peace time Russia can pass the Britain Channel o Gibraltar / Turkey straigths but in case of war, Baltic and Black Sea fleets are isolated and are easy to sink if go to sea

In fact Russian Navy Plans are oversized for the surface ships, really only need 2 Oceanic Fleets with one Carrier battlegroup each and 40 nuclear submarnes in total, and the Black Sea Fleet similar than today (6 frigates 6 corvettes 6 submarines) for show the flag in the Mediterranean sea
Baltic is a lagoon and Russia only need coastal defence and fast small ships capables to go from Leningrad to Kaliningrad in several hours (type Bora or even "Ekroplanes") , and the Caspian has enoguh with patrol boats , given that if necesary, Black Sea ships can go to Caspian through rivers and channels

Bad luck for Russia not to get the hull of Varyag. China only paid 20 million $ for it
In other case Russia could have finish a second Kutznestov for the Pacific Fleet

Their intervention in Syria changed all that! By now, all her fleets had ships & subs in the Med. Sea assisting & covering Russian & Assad forces there. Turkey & Iran r being shaped up for whatever comes next. Anti-piracy ops r also ongoing off E. Africa. Japan is still allied with the US & claims the S. Kurils, while the PRC claims most of the SC Sea. Korea is still divided & can become a bloodbath at any time. The Arctic seabed is still to be divided, its large portion claimed by Russia. Afghanistan & Central Asia r not free of conflicts.
A strong blue water VMF is needed as much as a deterrence as a fighting force, to keep the wolves away.

If you have something you need to say to me, that isn't about a topic say it in PM's this topic isn;t for you to attack people who say things you do not like even if it about russia okay. Because your attacking is reaaaaaalllly getting annoying.

The only problem I have with you is that much like the other people complaining about the performance of the Russian MIC in terms of the Navy, is that you ignore anyone elses comments or explainiations for the delays and problems revealed, and insisting you are all seeing and all knowing... the Ivan Gren will be delayed from entering service till next year because a problem has been found and a solution must be implimented and then tests to make sure the solution fixes the problem satisfactorily and does not create any further problems... but no... in you opinion... and the opinion of others... problems must be fixed instantly... or never should occur in the first place... obviously you clearly have extensive experience in management and realise problems only ever occur with people who don't know what they are doing... as long as they are Russian.

When several in service UK ships are found to be useless in warm water operational areas because of engine cooling problems... well that is just different... at least they were only slightly late into service despite serious flaws... how did they not pick that up during testing?

Perhaps the real difference is proper testing... the Russians get better tested equipment and systems and F-35 pilots just get suffocation highs...

1. The failures of the US and UK are hardly brought up when I do visit here, the problem here is you guys also like to compare faults of a new supercarrier to ones of a frigate, this aren't comparable, I think the Lirroral ships are junk btw and have said that.

Why should western issues be brought up when the rod you use to beat the Russians with is that a frigate should be built in x number of years... otherwise the maker is incompetent... ignoring the electronics and systems on these Frigates is more like AEGIS cruisers than the systems they were fitted with in the 1980s.

I have shared my view on the F-35 which frankly I think is a subpar aircraft and The brits, the only post I ever recall seeing about their failures was that fiasco with their destroyer that went dead in the water due to the temp of the water shutting it down.

Yet you don't complain that American and British heads should roll, and the manufacturers and navies are incompetent... I mean a whole class of destroyer gets into service with such a serious fault... do they even test them at all?

Now I post in sections about the russian's not the Brit or US.

The irony is that in the US and Brit sections, Russia is rarely mentioned, yet as I mention above... Russia forces and production are continuously compared with western and chinese examples... funny how a country that spends less than 60 billion a year is not up to scratch compared with the 700 billion the US spends and the 200 odd billion the rest of the EU spends or the 150 plus billion the Chinese are spending... how incompetent are these Russians... perhaps what they manage to get done with what they spend is actually a minor miracle... and certainly not critical... they are getting what they need... not what you want.

Would you like a list of what I think they are doing wrong I can provide that.

You often do, but the problem will be that when I pump out some reasons why are can't or wont do what you suggest you ignore it and call me a fanboy.

You remind me of the CNN interviewers who ask Putin questions and then when they don't get the answers that fit their view they just ask the same questions again... tell me again why are you supporting that butcher Assad... yes... you say he is the only leader that could create unity in the country and maintain stability while new elections are organised and that if the rag tag group of foreign supported terrorists actually won there would be chaos like in Libya today, but why are you supporting a man we allegedly kills with chemical weapons despite no independent evidence to prove it...

I don't know don't know what in your head bias means honestly, if it means "if you say anything negative about russia" then I guess that makes sense.

I think a big part of the problem is that you are part of a tag team and that some times I forget that some of the stupid things said don't all come from you, for which I apologise.

The sky is falling tag team you are part of and the members know who they are, don't take reasonable explanations regarding issues for the Russian Navy MIC... new sanctions now pretty much mean all electronics in Russian military equipment must come from Russia or Asia... this can only create further problems but then in the past there were conditional bans on such sales anyway so in the past that could cause delays and issues and price hikes too... none of which effect ship building in the west which you so like to compare...

I have said 60-70k carriers are good for them.

I have said they will not produce more than eight liders and they don't need that many.

I have never said they need a Us sized navy, I HAVE said they do need a decent navy to protect their interests overseas

On this we agree, but there is no way they could build up such a fleet in 5 or even 10 years... this is a 20-30 year plan at least...

Bigger surface vessels are still to prove their merits.

The problem is that the Russian Navy is not totally sure what it wants... given the components and the money there is no reason to think the Russian shipyards could not build what they want... they build Kilos and Mistral hulls fast enough... but no... some here claim they are incompetent and don't know what they are doing... which is very frustrating to hear every time a delay is announced.

It is true, but Russia has sufficient scientific and production resources to overcome these difficulties.

But the question the naysayers are not asking on this forum is what sort of pace would actually suit them... if there is going to be no new carrier until 2030, then where is the hurry to have enormous numbers of large ships now.

Money is being spent on upgrading shipyards and of course port infrastructure needs to be addressed too... they are not building hundreds of frigates right now but they are building support ships of all types.

But Russia is not a superpoweer like USSR , the half of population a quarter of armed forces and much less influence arround the world because USSR was the head of a ideological block and today there are only bussines and economical interests

I agree with most of what you are saying, but to be a global power you need a decent navy... in terms of mobility you would not create a mobile ground force and then not include air defence capability. The best air defence capability includes surface based radar and sensors and SAMs, but also airborne radar and sensors and AAMs... that is true for an Army and a Navy.

Russia does not need an enormous navy fleet but with even a corvette being comparable to a destroyer in firepower and performance then you wont need four cruisers and eight destroyers of several different types to operate with a carrier group... especially when the carrier itself has S-400 and S-500 missiles too.

Who knows what technology they are cooking up... they might ditch EMAL cats and just use nuclear powered airships with enormous radar antenna arrays tethered to corvette or destroyer sized ships... or that operate freely around the world following Russian ships of all types offering support and defence performance.

This is not a case of the USN has big carriers so Russia needs big carriers... this is about providing Russian ships with air support and protection anywhere they might operate... it wont be cheap but it will be protecting some of the most expensive vehicles the Russians possess.

Countries don't become rich and powerful and then develop a navy... it was a strong navy that made Britain Great and the US the global power it is today.

Having a strong navy to support its dealings means it can secure its own trade with other countries rather than relying on western powers to do the right thing and allow passage/commerce.