Russian Naval Construction Plans and Statistics Update

Is that Belgorod?
I kinda assumed it was going to lose the missile hatches with the upgrade, wonder if it still has missile tubes too?

It's not modernized Belgorod I think. Even silhuette of the ceremony features normal Antey sub only.



At the same time the Chinese had 70th anniversary of PLAN ceremony. Squadron of 18 foreign ships from 13 countries was led by Gorshkov.



Edit:

The boss has spoken: https://twitter.com/i/status/1120719123338731520

Key words:

- Russian presence in world oceans
- and distant sea zone
- fast pace of ship construction in last years will be maintained

Those 24 launch tubes for Granit should have three missile sleeves in each tube for Calibr or Onyx...

verkhoturye51 wrote:...
- fast pace of ship construction in last years will be maintained

Hopefully not, so far it's been a disaster

It would be advisable to speed it up

Updated diagram of ships under construction
http://charly015.blogspot.com/2019/04/actualizando-el-grafico-de-los-buques-y.html

Purple = launched but not complete/in service yet.

hoom wrote:Updated diagram of ships under construction
http://charly015.blogspot.com/2019/04/actualizando-el-grafico-de-los-buques-y.html

Purple = launched but not complete/in service yet.

I love how they made Khabarovsk smaller in this diagram than Lada-class even though it's a modified Borei SSBN...

Russia is probably best in nuke subs
surface fleet ... making there ships have insane firepower for their size .... I'd do the same

what is wrong with you people ? .... their strategy is utterly logical and brilliant ....
to me - lots of nuke SSGNs .... and lots of small widely distributed missile ships ... a no-brainer

meanwhile USA/NATO masturbate on the "high seas" "surface fleet domination " ... wasting endless money
seriously ..... stop watching CNN and the BBC .....

what amazes me about you dumb-arses is that you are cheer-leadering for exactly what the USA wants ...
they want Russia to bankrupt itself .... trying to be bigger wankers than the USA ......

you guys are so dumb .... seriously ... you are in the wrong century

and lets face it ... the biggest wankers in the history of the world are the "US-of-A"
a bunch of total twats ..... like most of you

A blue water fleet can be sent anywhere on the globe and can ensure Russian interests are respected.

They don't need thousands of ships and 20 CVNs... they could do it with two CVNs and perhaps 4-6 20K ton nuke powered destroyer/cruisers, plus maybe 24 mixed fleet of Gorshkov Frigate/Destroyer.. with maybe 6 of the current models and the remaining 18 with nuke propulsion and a 7K ton displacement and more missiles and bigger sensors.

A couple of helicopter landing ships... 2 based on the modified Ivan Gren and perhaps 2 based on an enlarged nuclear powered Mistral type vessel with better weapons and more helos and they would be pretty much right for 1-2 surface groups that could operate anywhere on the planets oceans to ensure Russian interests (military and commercial) can't be ignored.

It is not perfect.... note how ineffective the US was in the Georgian conflict in 2008, but equally how effective US naval power was in Serbia and Kosovo and ineffective Russia was in that situation.

Having a decent modern carrier group does not make Russia omnipotent or all powerful, but it gives them a say in situations where otherwise no one would normally listen.

If they had the Kuznetsov and a Kirov class ship and a couple of Udaloys off the coast of Venezuela right now doing exercises with the Venezuelan navy, the US would be having a fit but what they would not be doing is talking about an invasion.

Why would countries like Venezuela trade with Russia or China if they can't protect them from illegal regime change from the US?

Why would anyone trade with them?

Why do you think China is building up a Navy... they are doing so for the same reason and it has nothing to do with being tough on the internet, or to fight Russia... it is about securing sea lanes of communication and trade because America and Britain wont do it for them... except for a very heavy price of compliance and doing what they are told.... they don't like that and neither does Russia. In the EU the British and French want the choice to say no even if in the case of Britain they will never say no, but the rest have no spine at all.

In the Kosovo war the bases in Italy were effective. There were even studies done by western "think tanks" that showed how ineffective the carriers were compared to the land bases.

Hole wrote:In the Kosovo war the bases in Italy were effective. There were even studies done by western "think tanks" that showed how ineffective the carriers were compared to the land bases.

Correct

Land based aviation was doing 99% of damage

If USA tried to do anything with just carrier aircrafts they would still be at it (and hardly anyone here would have been too bothered over it)

My point was that depending on the situation their carriers can provide options to countries that are not available to countries that don't have carriers.

Even having x number of carrier groups the US Navy was impotent in Georgia, but Kosovo is not that much closer to the US, yet its distance from Russia and its close proximity to its EU allies meant it had decisive influence.

For Russia it does not have allies it can depend on abroad so if it looked like the US was about to invade venezuela then there would be nothing they could actually do without an at sea carrier or large ships. With large ships and carriers however they can send those ships and a very serious message to the west.

The west wont let Russia have its way unless Russia can back up words with force... they don't have to attack or invade anyone, but having naval forces that can defend themselves has value for Russia in international situations... but they sure don't need 10 CVNs and they don't need to be 100K ton carriers.

If they can get slightly better numbers and fire power in a multi hull 45K ton ship then two of those would be fine.

Hole wrote:In the Kosovo war the bases in Italy were effective. There were even studies done by western "think tanks" that showed how ineffective the carriers were compared to the land bases.

It makes sense if you can get a land base close to the action but that is not always the case.  A carrier aircraft dropping bombs is just as effective as a land based one.  It is all about sortie generation rate. A carrier operating 200km from the target area can turn around fighters faster than a land base 1000km away.

Vladimir79 wrote:

Hole wrote:In the Kosovo war the bases in Italy were effective. There were even studies done by western "think tanks" that showed how ineffective the carriers were compared to the land bases.

It makes sense if you can get a land base close to the action but that is not always the case.  A carrier aircraft dropping bombs is just as effective as a land based one.  It is all about sortie generation rate.  A carrier operating 200km from the target area can turn around fighters faster than a land base 1000km away.  

Re-supplying a carrier is much more difficult and costly. Helicopters can bring some foods but what can supply it with 1t bombs and 4-5m missiles.

Landing with not used bomb is risky also. If the deck is dammaged bye bye your air force.

Isos wrote:
Re-supplying a carrier is much more difficult and costly. Helicopters can bring some foods but what can supply it with 1t bombs and 4-5m missiles.

Landing with not used bomb is risky also. If the deck is dammaged bye bye your air force.

Yes, but it is more complicated and costly to "move" your air base 1000 km away from its location.

Isos wrote:

Re-supplying a carrier is much more difficult and costly. Helicopters can bring some foods but what can supply it with 1t bombs and 4-5m missiles.

Landing with not used bomb is risky also. If the deck is dammaged bye bye your air force.

That is what transport helicopters with ramps are for.  The Caiman can deliver a spare M88 engine or ASMP-A internally, or sling 4t underneath.

In the case of Libya, the MN leased C-2 Greyhounds to keep the CdG on station but the addition of Caiman in 2016 made that no longer necessary.

A CVN doesn't need to carry fuel for itself so its fuel tanks are for aviation fuel... it is also a reason why I argue with PD and others about the size of the carrier... a bigger carrier can carry a lot more aircraft but also a lot more fuel and munitions.

The amount of fuel and munitions it carries will be limited by its capacity, but you can extend operational potential by carrying 60 planes instead of 90, and using the extra space for stores or helicopters to transfer munitions and fuel and equipment.

All surface action groups will need support ships to provide fuel for their helicopters and ammo and food and fresh water and a thousand other things they need to provide normal operations... they will have quite a few dedicated large ships for the purpose.

BTW having to support something is not a good reason to decide you don't need it or shouldn't have it...

Having AWACS type aircraft operating from catapult systems means a transport aircraft could also land and take off from the ship if needed, but having a ship come along side and transfer by crane and pipe transfers of fuels is much faster and more efficient.

Pallets of food and equipment could simply be placed on the deck of a carrier and moved inside via aircraft lifts using forklift type vehicles...

https://tass.com/defense/1074729/amp

Russia will receive 6 submarines in 2020.

Very good power up for their navy !