Russian Naval Construction Plans and Statistics Update

Isn't the replacement of Sov/Udaloy a bigger priority now? The replacement of such ships is bigger priority right now. Out of 15 Udaloys that served Soviets, 9 remain and will be upgraded to modern level (potentially). This leaves 6 ships to be filled with Gorshkov-m. Of the Sovremmeny there were 17 of this class active. Virtually none are left of them. Means they need roughly 17 Gorshkov type ships to replace these guys. So roughly about 20-25 ships need replacing, with 9 upgraded Udaloys.

There were 40 Krivak built which also need to be replaced by Grigorivich/Gorshkov.

As you can see 20+40=60 ships that will need to be replaced of decent tonnage. 7 Arsenal ships can be made later after this priority is met. Meantime having 2 Kirov and 2 Slava and 1 carrier is not bad until Lider + Shtorm comes online.

11356 played bigger role in Syria than Slava, who liquidated the C-2 of enemy? Who provided near shore security?  24 x 3S90M1 also provided additional AD to Slava S-300. Just 2 of these guys made a huge difference, having 20-30 is another realm. Also 8 oniks is not less deadly than the  Bazalt/vulcan. 2 11356 carrying 16 oniks is more dangerous than one slava with 20 bazalts/vulcans so the priority for MOD and from what they are doing seems to be focusing on Gorshkov and Gorshkov-M. They will also contribute to blue water ability.

As for Lider, I would say even next SAP is possible. How many Liders will they actually build? 2 Kirovs basically need to be replaced and Slava they made 3. So basically 7 Liders. 60 Gorshkov > 7 Lider right now. Especially since they will have Ustinov, Varyag, Nakhimov, and Peter Velikiy

Isos wrote:USSR with its huge resources managed to produce only 4 kirov. When they saw how costly they were they started Slavas.

Hope for them they won't make the same mistake. If they want arsenal ships with hundreds of VLS go for sub. They don't need helicopters and air def systems.

The scope of a sub is to travel undetected, while a capital ship like a carrier or a battle cruiser have to show that is the biggest and the meaniest in the area. Also for port visits to foreign countries a sub is not the ideal ship.
And finally (but one of the more important points) I believe the more important characteristic of both Slavas and Kirovs is their multilayered air defence system. Air defence for a large area, protecting the rest of the fleet is not something that a Ohio class submarine, converted in cruise missile carrier, can provide.

Isos wrote:The thing is that they are not replacing 1 old for 1 new.

Sov were meant to be replace by gorshkov but now it seems Liders will replace them.

Grigorovitch were bought because Gorshkov were not coming as quickly as they wanted. But it is a pretty good ship that even indian orders in big numbers.

In terms of number, they wants 30 Gorshkovs and 12 Liders.

But now they have Gorshkov-M in their plans which no one knows what it will be.

Putin has repeatedly stated that Russia needs a blue water navy, most recently in his annual nation address in February. For Liders, time schedule was given. Construction has to start in early 2020s with commissioning in the late 2020s. Next stage is technical design. Deputy Navy commander Bursuk said that it will begin in 2019-2020 and will be finished by 2022. Every normal person would expect delays and timelines shifted right, but the project is overall progressing.

Russians and timelines never agree unfortunatly. Most of the time there is like 7 or 8 years of delays.

they need capital ships (leader class cruiser/destroyers) and they need also other blue water ships. Those latter could be a mix of destroyers and or frigates. The navy apparently is very happy of the first Gorshkov class frigate, so I can imagine that they will want to build at the same time both Gorshkov and Gorshkov-M. In addition the frigates and light destroyers will be build in different shipyards than those that will build the Leader class battlecruisers. The problem could only be on the availability of proper funding for the projects, but apparently there is.support from the president.

Furthermore, the difference to the soviet times is that all kind of ships will get a similar armament (slava, kirovs and sovs had all.different.weapons instead) the difference will be instead the quantity of the VLS cells.

Isn't the replacement of Sov/Udaloy a bigger priority now?

There are many priority projects in the Russian navy. Improved Gorshkov class is currently in the technical design phase, with the laying down of the first ship scheduled for 2020 as per Northern Design Bureau.

Russians and timelines never agree unfortunatly. Most of the time there is like 7 or 8 years of delays.

Don't exaggerate. This happened with Gorshkov and Gren. Those projects were complex and faced big financial and supply issues. Now all of this is over. Russia is producing domestic diesel engines and other equipment. Besides, Lider is to have a nuclear power plant. So there is no reason for any significant delays from now on.

The Kirov was a very ambitious class of ship... they are the biggest non carrier military ship even today, they didn't have custom designed nuclear reactors to propel them so they went for a complicated combined propulsion system... it was also the first navy ship to use vertical launch missiles... there was lots that was brand new and risky and it was being built at a time when the money was spread very thin, so as a precaution they also built what the west called the Krasina class, which was later called the Slava class when the name of the first vessel was revealed... it had a much reduced weapon load because its conventional power plant was not the same and not as powerful.

It had Rif and Klinok vertical launch SAMs but otherwise it was much smaller and lighter and while heavily armed with 16 Vulkan supersonic anti ship missiles, it didn't really have the same presence that the Kirov did with its enormous size but strangely for a Soviet vessel decks that appeared empty with no missile tubes or arm launchers.

The Kirovs were the new powerful ships that would support carriers, and the Slavas were a backup cheaper safer option.

With new and much more powerful nuclear reactors a Kirov of today could be a much more powerful vessel... it just really depends on how much they want to spend.... but even just taking out the Granits and Rifs and replacing them with UKSK launchers and Redut launchers (note even the 9M96 50km and 150km range missiles would be a huge improvement over the 90km range Rif, let alone a 200km range S-300 variant or 400km range S-400 variant), plus replacing Kashtan-M with Pantsir, and of course the old TOR with the new TOR with twice as many missiles fitting in to the same space... so 192 missiles replaced with 384 missiles, with their range extended from 12km to about 20km and much better accuracy... and you could probably replace the 130mm gun mount on the rear for a 152mm gun mount they developed with the Army in the Coalition programme.

These changes are not ground breaking and offer a chance to get new systems into service so they can be tested with other systems and the bugs can be worked out... and of course major radar and sensors elements and ESM equipment upgraded... these ships were command centres and battle management vessels so there will be an enormous volume and mass of old electrionics that can be taken out and replaced with much more modern and more powerful and capable electronics that will probably be cheaper and more energy efficient and lighter and will take up a fraction of the space the old stuff took up.

It would actually be an interesting job just looking at the original components and systems of the Kirov and the new replacement systems and components and working out the best way to upgrade them.

Just as an example you could take a computer from the 1970s... a Spectrum ZX81, and pretty much replace the insides with a tablet computer and make it a touchscreen portable system that is battery powered. With a mini computer... the size of a small room you could use modern components and make a rack mount system that is easy to maintain and manage and vastly more powerful and capable and perhaps a fraction of the size... what do you do with the extra room?

Well there are probably other things nearby that could be expanded and use the extra room... ie more 152mm shell storage for example, or more fresh water stores or food stores, or a LAN games room for the crew to relax... a bit of counterstrike.

Isos wrote:

launchers and Redut launchers (note even the 9M96 50km and 150km range missiles would be a huge improvement over the 90km range Rif, let alone a 200km range S-300 variant or 400km range S-400 variant),

Half of PtG S-300 are Rif the other half are rif-M which is naval PMU2 standard and uses 48N6E2 missiles with 250km range. You can see that the front radar is the one from ground s-300 (rif-M) and the one in the back is a big round radar for rif that you can also see on slavas.

Gorshkov could have had the rif-M too just like chinese frigate that have it. The VLS just like Redut launcher is not universal so that change nothing apart missile types being carried.

They are planning to uniform the launchers in the future, so maybe the upgraded PTG could have 176 UKSK-M instead of 80 UKSK +48 Fort + 48 Fort-M as in Nakhimov (80 UKSK as replacement for the 20 Granit cells).

The S400 missiles should be not too different.in size from onyx anyway...

As discussed before, instead the redut cells in Gorshkov class are not optimized for the missile size, so they maybe plan to substitute them anyway.

From what I was able to.find online the longer range (120km) S350 missiles (9M96E2) have a diameter of 240mm, against a 519 mm diameter of.the 48N6 S400 missile, the about 430mm diameter of the kalibr and the about 700mm diameter of.the onyx.

The redut VLS cell is however not that small compared with the UKSK from what we can see in gorshkov. As Garry already posted, 4 quad packed 9m96E2 could fit inside a UKSK-m.

The only "waste" could be in vertical space (as the shorter range.missile are also shorter), unless they decide to have some of the VLS launcher shorter (as it is the case for the french VLS, that exists in different lenghts but with the same horizontal area), maybe be able to install them in other part if the ships with less vertical space available.

and/or they could maybe develop smaller redut VLS, optimized for the size of their missiles.

Isos wrote:

The only "waste" could be in vertical space (as the shorter range.missile are also shorter), unless they decide to have some of the VLS launcher shorter (as it is the case for the french VLS, that exists in different lenghts but with the same horizontal area), maybe be able to install them in other part if the ships with less vertical space available

Just keep the redut then . Because a universal VLS that is too short for most of missiles is no longer universal.

Then, as i was saying, they could redesign the redut to a smaller diameter, as the cell is much bigger than the missile inside it, and the "horizontal" space in the ship is not well used.

Unless these launchers are instead optimized for the size of the quad packed shorter range s350 missile, that are 125 mm in diameter (vs 240mm).

Do we have any recent news on the MGT production of M90FR, M70FRU, and M70FRU-2? It seems to me the only thing stopping production is that they have not reached excess efficiency of the 10-15% stated by UEC. What is limiting them from achieving efficiency? Zorya Mashproekt states that they use cobalt alloys and other additives to manufacture their axial blades which have high thermal efficiency and can tolerate combustion chamber temperature reaching 1165 degrees without warping effects that can degrade engine performance. This temperature allows for High revving 5200RPM performance, and optimal fuel system pressurization allowing low revving performance around 3300RPM without having to power on smaller cruise turbines or cruise diesels. If the only thing NPO is aiming for is increased efficiency, I doubt the problem is their materials science as far as producing axial blades. I know they have advanced materials science and I doubt additives or cobalt alloy production is a limiting factor, neither is precision equipment necessary to mill and machine said components as they have a variety of extruding machines, 5-axis and 7-axis mills, precision laser cutters, and all the other toys. Could it be that fuel system is a very nuanced and tedious system? Those small diameter inlets are withstanding high external temperatures as well as high internal fuel temp and high pressure flow. Could NPO Saturn have problems with ensuring adequate pressurization of fuel system? They could have the engine 90% ready but without adequate fuel system they will not reach desired efficiency. Fuel inlets are not the same as blades, they have to be welded together, when you see the turbine you can see the variety of inlets and hoses running across distributing fuel to achieve optimal atomization and combustion.

I know Agregat DKVP is for M70FRU-2 and has a stated superior efficiency of 0.4% over Zorya Mashproekt DP-71. If NPO Saturn is producing results similar to UGT16000 and UGT15000, why not just put out the engines they have and work on increased efficiency as they ramp up production? Why is it necessary to begin production with the already stated 15%+ efficiency rating?

Gearboxes are nowhere near as complicated as engines, casting technology and machining tech aside, gearboxes do not heat up to engine levels, or withstand high pressurization, from what I understand gearboxes are designed with optimal tolerances of ring and pinion as well as high tolerance clutch packs and gear sets. Spec is set for optimal gear speed without creating positive or negative backlash on gear teeth which prematurely wear out gear teeth. Also gear oil lubricants and the flow of lubricants within the cast housing is also important, as during gear operation the oil must spin optimally within the housing to allow for good lubrication. This is nothing compared to maintaining high engine core temperature or fuel pressure. There is know how that goes into it but if they are as far along on M90FR as they say, then gearboxes are nothing for their machining guys.

Half of PtG S-300 are Rif the other half are rif-M which is naval PMU2 standard and uses 48N6E2 missiles with 250km range. You can see that the front radar is the one from ground s-300 (rif-M) and the one in the back is a big round radar for rif that you can also see on slavas.

Gorshkov could have had the rif-M too just like chinese frigate that have it. The VLS just like Redut launcher is not universal so that change nothing apart missile types being carried.

The radars it is fitted with don't indicate the actual missiles being carried... the vessel might have the new radar for the upgraded missile, but how many new missiles have they actually paid for and how many are even carried at sea?

As discussed before, instead the redut cells in Gorshkov class are not optimized for the missile size, so they maybe plan to substitute them anyway.

I would not read too much in to the size of the cells for the tests... they might have had telemetry equipment in each tube with the missile to measure all sorts of things and contain cameras or other instruments to monitor conditions for the missile during storage and launch and after launch... the operational system would probably have four missiles per missile hatch.

The only "waste" could be in vertical space (as the shorter range.missile are also shorter), unless they decide to have some of the VLS launcher shorter (as it is the case for the french VLS, that exists in different lenghts but with the same horizontal area), maybe be able to install them in other part if the ships with less vertical space available.

and/or they could maybe develop smaller redut VLS, optimized for the size of their missiles.

Or they could stack the shorter missiles. So in a missile tube big enough to take an S-400 full size missile you should be able to fit four 9M96 missiles, and it is mentioned on another thread that they can fit four 9M100 missiles in each 9M96 tube, so you should be able to get 4x4 9M100 missiles in each S-400 tube so that is 16 missiles, but in terms of length there is a lot of wasted space as you point out... the 150km 9M96 is twice as long as the 50km range 9M96 so perhaps two layers of the 150km missile meaning 8 missiles per tube and perhaps three layers of the smaller 50km range 9M96 missile so 12 missiles per S-400 tube, and the 9M100 might be only slightly shorter than the 50km range missile so perhaps four layers of missiles.... which would be 64 missiles per S-400 tube.

So with a total of 8 tubes, one UKSK-M launcher might have two S-500s which will fill the tubes completely, two S-400s with 400km range missiles, leaving four tubes... perhaps two with the long range 150km range missile, so 16 missiles, one with the 50km range missile with 12 missiles and one with 9M100 missiles and 64 missiles.

So one UKSK-M launcher with:

S-500 x 2 = 600km range.
S-400 x 2 = 400km range.
9M96 x 16 = 150km range.
9M96 x 12 = 50km range.
9M100 x 64 = 10-15km range.

I would imagine a corvette would not bother with the S-500s and S-400s, so you could literally double the load of the other weapons... 32 x 150km range missiles, 24 x 50km range missiles, and 128 range 10-15km range missiles... which would be a potent self defence SAM armament...

Without stacking then a single 8 tube UKSK-M launcher could carry 2 x S-500 missiles, 2 x S-400 missiles, 12 x 9M96 missiles, 16 x 9M100 missiles.

Just keep the redut then . Because a universal VLS that is too short for most of missiles is no longer universal.

Depends on Reduts design... can it for example carry S-400 missiles... and if it can then it is already too long to efficiently carry 9M100 missiles without stacking... and if you add stacking to make it work then you might as well use the UKSK-M.

Unless these launchers are instead optimized for the size of the quad packed shorter range s350 missile, that are 125 mm in diameter (vs 240mm).

To be clear there seems to be three different missile diameters that we are talking about... the S-300/S-400 full size missiles, and then the 9M96 reduced size S-400 family missiles and then the very small 9M100 missiles.

The Redut hatch covers seem to be sized for the S-300/400 full size SAMs as used in the S-300P and S-300F missiles, so it should be able to carry four 9M96 missiles per missile hatch because the S-400 system could carry four 9M96 in place of each older larger tube.

The 9M96 seem to be being called S-350 in the new land system, which carries two rows of 6 launch tubes in a 12 missile launcher, but when fitted with 9M100, which allows four missiles per 9M96 tube that means 48 missiles per launcher, or 16 missiles per original S-300/S-400 tube...

There is a video somewhere here in the naval section, which was posted a few days ago, that showed that they are developing a version of the 40N6 missile for the Redut = 400km range.

Which suggests the reason the hatch covers and missile space is so big is because ultimately they want to be able to use the standard S-300 and S-400 sized missiles as an option and so testing the much smaller 9M96 they needed a fairing cover to fill the tube space.

I suspect the 250km and 400km missiles would be useful... especially with air support and an air borne AWACS platform giving target data regarding very far away targets... in a net centric IADS the launch platform is not so important and could be a tiny Corvette or even a submarine if they want to get clever... remember the Yasen class has UKSK launchers... imagine being in an MPA or anti sub helo knowing the Yasen class SSGN you are hunting could launch a 9M100 lock on after launch IIR guided SAM with very little warning... they could probably hear you coming and launch based on sound...

It was this thread:

https://www.russiadefence.net/t7063p425-s-300-400-500-news-russian-strategic-air-defense-3#255518

Where dino00 posted a link stating the Vityaz could carry 48 9M100s... it carries 12 9M96s... and the standard S-400 has four tubes for normal sized S-400 missiles and can carry 4 9M96 missiles per tube for a total of 16 missiles with 9M96s only, so with 9M100s it should be able to carry 64 missiles... which would look rather odd as they are much much shorter missiles...

Hole wrote:There is a video somewhere here in the naval section, which was posted a few days ago, that showed that they are developing a version of the 40N6 missile for the Redut = 400km range.

This I think
https://iz.ru/813938/aleksei-ramm-bogdan-stepovoi/sbit-so-sveta-korabli-poluchat-novye-zenitnye-rakety

GarryB wrote:It was this thread:

https://www.russiadefence.net/t7063p425-s-300-400-500-news-russian-strategic-air-defense-3#255518

Where dino00 posted a link stating the Vityaz could carry 48 9M100s... it carries 12 9M96s... and the standard S-400 has four tubes for normal sized S-400 missiles and can carry 4 9M96 missiles per tube for a total of 16 missiles with 9M96s only, so with 9M100s it should be able to carry 64 missiles... which would look rather odd as they are much much shorter missiles...

Nope this one

https://iz.ru/813938/aleksei-ramm-bogdan-stepovoi/sbit-so-sveta-korabli-poluchat-novye-zenitnye-rakety

GarryB wrote:It was this thread:

https://www.russiadefence.net/t7063p425-s-300-400-500-news-russian-strategic-air-defense-3#255518

Where dino00 posted a link stating the Vityaz could carry 48 9M100s... it carries 12 9M96s... and the standard S-400 has four tubes for normal sized S-400 missiles and can carry 4 9M96 missiles per tube for a total of 16 missiles with 9M96s only, so with 9M100s it should be able to carry 64 missiles... which would look rather odd as they are much much shorter missiles...

, yeah the 40 km range 9M100 missiles are only 2.5 metres long (against the more than 5,5 metres of the 120km range 9M96E2 and the 7.5 metres of the S400 missiles. I do not know if it is true, but I have read somewhere that the 400km range 40N6 is more than 11 metres long.

Anyway i believe the russian missiles are cold launched. If so maybe they "could" be "layered", but one would have to count also the size of the cold launching system for each missile.


And finally: maybe the idea of small dedicated launchers for the 9M100 missiles is not a bad idea at all. They could be used also in smaller ships and they could replace the 128 Tor VLS cells in Peter the great and the 192 Tor cells in Kuznetov.

Since 2012, more than 80 ships and boats have entered service. We publish the list:

On April 23, 2019, at a ceremonial event in St. Petersburg on the occasion of the laying of new warships, it was reported that from 2012 to the present, more than 80 ships and boats, including three strategic missile submarines, were handed over to the armament. This statement caused interesting discussions and discussions in public circles, as many believe that this figure is too high. In this regard, it will be interesting to consider the completion of our Navy since 2012 and to see whether our fleet has really accepted more than 80 combat units.

For starters, it should be noted separately that quite often many analysts and experts in the military field, analyzing the update of our fleet, take into account only large warships and submarines, well, suppose everything that has a displacement of 1000 tons and above, justifying it by that only these units are able to solve problems in the far sea zone and pose a serious threat to the enemy. In addition, often forget about the ships and boats for special purposes. This is fundamentally wrong, since each combat unit, starting from a boat, has its own range of tasks and mission. Moreover, a ship / boat enrolled in the Navy by order of the Navy GC is considered a military unit of the Navy, it is given a combat flag - the flag of the Navy (Andreevsky) and this unit is credited to a particular base / unit. Therefore, ignoring, say, patrol / anti-sabotage or amphibious boats is a deep mistake. The following is a list of ships and boats of all projects submitted to the Russian Navy from 01/01/2012 to the present (we confine ourselves to the date 04/23/2019 - at the time of the announcement of the figures):

1). Project 955 CPSW-535 "Yury Dolgoruky" - adopted in the Northern Fleet in 2012.

2). K-550 SSBN “Alexander Nevsky” of Project 955 - adopted in the Pacific Fleet in 2013.

3). The K-551 SSBN "Vladimir Monomakh" of Project 955 was accepted into the Pacific Fleet in 2014.

4). APKR K-560 "Severodvinsk" project 885 - adopted in the Northern Fleet in 2013.

5). Diesel-electric submarines B-260 "Novorossiysk" project 06363 - was accepted into the BSF in 2014.

6). The diesel-electric submarines B-237 "Rostov-on-Don" project 06363 - was accepted into the BSF in 2014.

7). Diesel Substation B-262 "Old Oskol" project 06363 - was accepted into the BSF in 2015.

. Diesel-electric submarines B-265 "Krasnodar" project 06363 - adopted in the BSF in 2015.

9). The diesel-electric submarines B-268 "Veliky Novgorod" project 06363 - was accepted into the Black Sea Fleet in 2016.

10). The diesel-electric submarines B-271 "Kolpino" project 06363 - was accepted into the Black Sea Fleet in 2016.

11). The frigate "Admiral of the Fleet of the Soviet Union Gorshkov" project 22350 - adopted in the Northern Fleet in 2018.

12). The frigate "Admiral Grigorovich" project 11356 - was accepted into the Black Sea Fleet in 2016.

13). The frigate "Admiral Essen" project 11356 - adopted in the Black Sea Fleet in 2016.

14). The frigate "Admiral Makarov" project 11356 - adopted in the Black Sea Fleet in 2017.

15). Corvette "Boiky" project 20380 - adopted in the BF in 2013.

16). Corvette "Resistant" project 20380 - adopted in the BF in 2014.

17). Corvette "Perfect" project 20380 - adopted in the Pacific Fleet in 2017.

18). Corvette "Loud" project 20380 - adopted in the Pacific Fleet in 2018.

19). Rocket ship "Dagestan" project 11661K - adopted in the CFL in 2012.

20). Patrol ship "Vasily Bykov" project 22160 - adopted in the Black Sea Fleet in 2018.

21). Small rocket ship "Grad Sviyazhsk" project 21631 - adopted in the CFL in 2013.

22). Small rocket ship "Uglich" project 21631 - adopted in the CFL in 2013.

23). Small rocket ship "Veliky Ustyug" project 21631 - adopted in the CFL in 2014.

24). Small rocket ship "Serpukhov" project 21631 - adopted in the Black Sea Fleet in 2015. Since 2016, the service carries in the BF.

25). Small Rocket Ship "Green Dol" project 21631 - adopted in the BSF in 2015. Since 2016, the service carries in the BF.

26). Small rocket ship "Vyshny Volochek" project 21631 - adopted in the Black Sea Fleet in 2018.

27). Small rocket ship "Orekhovo-Zuyevo" project 21631 - adopted in the Black Sea Fleet in 2018.

28). Small rocket ship "Mytishchi" project 22800 - adopted in the BF in 2018.

29). Small artillery ship "Makhachkala" project 21630 - adopted in the CFL in 2012.

30). Sea trawler "Alexander Obukhov" project 12700 - adopted in the BF in 2016.

31). Sea trawler "Ivan Antonov" project 12700 - adopted in the Black Sea Fleet in 2018.

32). The average reconnaissance ship “Yuri Ivanov” of project 18280 was accepted into the Northern Fleet in 2014.

33). The average reconnaissance ship Ivan Khurs of project 18280 was accepted into the Black Sea Fleet in 2018.

34). Large landing ship "Ivan Gren" project 11711 - adopted in the Northern Fleet in 2018.

35). The landing craft on the “Ivan Kartsov” air-cavity of the Project 21820 was accepted into the Pacific Fleet in 2014.

36). The landing craft on the air-cavity “Michman Lermontov” of the project 21820 was accepted into the Baltic Fleet in 2014.

37). The landing craft on the air-cavity “Denis Davydov” of the project 21820 - was accepted into the Baltic Fleet in 2014.

38). The landing craft on the air-cavity “Lieutenant Rimsky-Korsakov” of Project 21820 - was accepted into the BF in 2014.

39). The landing craft on the air-cavity “D-199” of project 11770 was accepted into the Black Sea Fleet in 2014.

40). The landing craft on the air cavity "№-746" (w / o) of project 11770 - was accepted into the CFL in 2013.

41). The air-cavity landing craft (tentatively No. 722) of project 11770 was accepted into the CFL in 2013.

42). Anti-sabotage boat "P-680" of project 12150A - adopted in the BF in 2013.

43). Anti-sabotage boat "P-679" of project 12150A - adopted in the BF in 2013.

44). The anti-sabotage boat P-191 "Cadet" of project 21980 was accepted into the Black Sea Fleet in 2012.

45). Anti-sabotage boat P-349 "Suvorovets" project 21980 - adopted in the BSF in 2012.

46). Anti-diversion boat P-350 "Kursant Kirovets" project 21980 - adopted in the Black Sea Fleet in 2013.

47). Anti-sabotage boat P-355 "Yunarmeets Crimea" project 21980 - adopted in the Black Sea Fleet in 2014.

48). Anti-sabotage boat P-424 "Kinel" project 21980 - adopted in the Black Sea Fleet in 2014.

49). Anti-diversion boat "P-433" project 21980 - adopted in the Black Sea Fleet in 2017.

50). Anti-diversion boat P-351 "Caspian Yunarmeets" project 21980 - adopted in the CFL in 2013.

51). Anti-sabotage boat "Yunarmeets Tatarstan" project 21980 - adopted in the CFL in 2018.

52). The anti-sabotage boat P-340 "Ynarmeets Polaria" project 21980 - was accepted into the Northern Fleet in 2016.

53). Anti-sabotage boat P-421 "Yunarmeets Belomorye" project 21980 - adopted in the Northern Fleet in 2016.

54). Anti-sabotage boat P-430 "Valery Fedyanin" project 21980 - adopted in the Northern Fleet in 2017.

55). Anti-sabotage boat P-429 "Sergey Preminin" project 21980 - adopted in the Northern Fleet in 2017.

56). Anti-diversion boat P-377 project 21980 - adopted in the Pacific Fleet in 2013.

57). Anti-sabotage boat P-420 "Yunarmeets of Primorye" project 21980 - adopted in the Pacific Fleet in 2014.

58). Anti-sabotage boat P-417 "Yunarmeets Kamchatka" project 21980 - adopted in the Pacific Fleet in 2014.

59). The anti-sabotage boat P-431 “Yunarmeets of Chukotka” of the project 21980 was accepted into the Pacific Fleet in 2017.

60). The anti-sabotage boat of the project 21980 (serial number 8006) was accepted into the Pacific Fleet in 2018.

61). Anti-sabotage (amphibious assault) boat "P-274" project 03160 - adopted in the Black Sea Fleet in 2015.

62). The anti-sabotage (amphibious assault) cutter P-275 of Project 03160 was accepted into the Black Sea Fleet in 2015.

63). Anti-sabotage (amphibious assault) boat "P-276" project 03160 - adopted in the Black Sea Fleet in 2015.

64). Anti-sabotage (amphibious assault) boat P-280 "Yunarmeets Baltika" project 03160 - adopted in the BF in 2015.

65). Anti-sabotage (amphibious assault) boat P-281 project 03160 - adopted in the BF in 2015.

66). Anti-sabotage (amphibious assault) boat P-344 project 03160 - adopted in the BF in 2015.

67). Anti-sabotage (amphibious assault) boat P-845 project 03160 - adopted in the Black Sea Fleet in 2015.

68). Anti-sabotage (amphibious assault) boat P-838 of project 03160 - was accepted into the Black Sea Fleet in 2015.

69). Anti-sabotage (amphibious assault) boat P-413 of the project 03160 - accepted into the Black Sea Fleet in 2017.

70). Anti-sabotage (amphibious assault) boat P-425 of the project 03160 - accepted into the Black Sea Fleet in 2017.

71). Anti-sabotage (amphibious assault) boat "P-345" project 03160 - adopted in the BF in 2015.

72). The anti-sabotage (amphibious assault) boat P-415 “Georgy Potekhin” of Project 03160 was accepted into the Baltic Fleet in 2017.

73). Anti-sabotage (amphibious assault) boat number 659 of project 03160 - adopted in the BF in 2018.

74). The D-308 amphibious assault boat of project 02510 was accepted into the Northern Fleet in 2018.

75). The D-2110 amphibious assault boat of project 02510 was accepted into the Northern Fleet in 2018.

76). The D-655 amphibious assault boat of project 02510 was accepted into the Black Sea Fleet in 2018.

77). The amphibious assault boat D-296 of project 02510 was accepted into the Black Sea Fleet in 2015.

78). High-speed patrol boat "RK-2173" project A-149-1 - adopted in the CFL in 2015.

79). High-speed patrol boat of the project A-149-1 - adopted in the Black Sea Fleet in 2013.

80). The high-speed patrol boat P-834 of the project IC16MII - in 2013 became part of the Black Sea Fleet.

81). The high-speed patrol boat "P-835" of the project IC16MII - in 2013 became part of the Black Sea Fleet.

As we see, in fact, since 2012, the Russian Navy has really received at least 80 new combat units into its units. It is also worth noting that, according to preliminary data, no less than 6 airborne assault boats of the Project 02800 of the “Tavr” type have already been transferred to the Russian Navy, which in turn act both independently and as a regular unit of the new patrol ships of the Project 22160. For the near future until the end of 2019, according to the Russian Defense Ministry, it is planned to transfer at least 15 combat units to the Navy. Among them, the frigate of the project 22350, the PC of the project 22160, the MRK of the project 21631 and 22800, the submarine of the project 06363, the submarine of the projects 955A and 885, the MSCP of the project 12700, the PKA of the project 03160 and 024510 and the RAN of the project 21980 of the Rook type.

, yeah the 40 km range 9M100 missiles are only 2.5 metres long (against the more than 5,5 metres of the 120km range 9M96E2 and the 7.5 metres of the S400 missiles. I do not know if it is true, but I have read somewhere that the 400km range 40N6 is more than 11 metres long.

No, that is not true... the 400km range missile is the same size as the S-300 missiles... there are pretty much only one size large missiles for the S-300 and S-400... the new missiles are the reduced size S-400 missiles called 9M96, that have now been called S-350, and the new Morfei 9M100 missiles which are supposed to be cross platform missiles used by army navy and air force.

The article above states that Redut will get 40N6 400km range missiles, so there is no point in reducing the size of the launch tubes for Redut now because they were always intending to use the big full size S-300 and S-400 missiles in them.

This means the tube could take one 400km range missile (or probably the 250km range version too) as well as the 150km range and 60km range smaller missiles but the smaller missiles should pack four to a tube because they could fit four of these missiles to each standard S-400 tube on the land based model.... so they should be able to manage the same with the naval models.

Which means the 9M100 should fit 16 missiles to a single tube being four tubes each with four missiles... which is in a single layer.

If they can stack the layers they could do even better.

Anyway i believe the russian missiles are cold launched. If so maybe they "could" be "layered", but one would have to count also the size of the cold launching system for each missile.

Note each missile is in its own self contained tube with a cold launch system built in to it to blow the missile up and away from the launch tube before the rocket motor is ignited.

It would not take much effort to have a base layer that the tubes sit on and when all missiles are launched the base layer launches the tubes clear of the main tube and drags them off sideways into the water to clear the next layer of tubes.

And finally: maybe the idea of small dedicated launchers for the 9M100 missiles is not a bad idea at all. They could be used also in smaller ships and they could replace the 128 Tor VLS cells in Peter the great and the 192 Tor cells in Kuznetov.

It is an interesting idea, but keep in mind the new model TOR is half the size so double the ammo can be carried for the same dimensions... so 256 for PtG and 384 missiles for AdK... with the powerful and sophisicated radars all over those ships these command guided missiles will be very capable and accurate... I would actually suggest the 9M100 could be a good compliment for those missiles... (ie addition but not replacement).

Or something like the Gibhka launcher fitted with 8 x 9M100.

Actually Gibka would be interesting if you used a range of missile types.... the Igla-S is a potent missile, as would be its replacement Verba, but the SOSNA-R would also be interesting, as would Krisantema or Kornet. 9M100 would be rather more sophisticated and effective... but the idea of a cheap air defence system suggests it is probably OK as it is.

Since 2012, more than 80 ships and boats have entered service.

Nice list... wasn't there talk of 160 new ships by 2023-2025 or something?

GarryB wrote:

Since 2012, more than 80 ships and boats have entered service.

Nice list... wasn't there talk of 160 new ships by 2023-2025 or something?

Probably includes non combat vessels also. During that same period of the 80 fighting vessels, there have been about 100 support vessels arrive also. Another factor that confuses the situation is the difference between a ship and a boat. Half those vessels on the list mentioned would be classified as a ship, while the rest are boats suitable for harbour and inshore operations only.

franco wrote:Probably includes non combat vessels also. During that same period of the 80 fighting vessels, there have been about 100 support vessels arrive also. Another factor that confuses the situation is the difference between a ship and a boat. Half those vessels on the list mentioned would be classified as a ship, while the rest are boats suitable for harbour and inshore operations only.  

The first ten are related to submarines, the second 10 are actual surface combatants and the last 60 are not worth mentioning.

Vladimir79 wrote:The first ten are related to submarines, the second 10 are actual surface combatants and the last 60 are not worth mentioning.  

Not worth mentioning? Or simply not glamorous war-fighters? Russia needs to replace her old Soviet-era boats. They were good solid designs and had plenty of life left in them at the start of the 90s, but nothing lasts forever and modern replacements are needed after the best part of 3 decades.

My take is that the mix of sub/surface combatant/support & auxiliary is fully consistent with the rebuilding of the RuN from the ground (seabed?) upwards. You can't build a new blue-water navy for global operations if you can't de-mine your harbours, protect your bases from frogmen saboteurs, patrol your maritime borders or perform recon.