Russian Navy: Status & News #1

sepheronx wrote:I truely think Russia needs to take a good look at what they had previously.  The Yak-141 jumpjet project was too good to give up, and yet, they did (understandably during the time it was being worked on).  What I am getting at though is that a ship like what Japan recently commissioned, the 22DDH, is a wonderful ship, and something like that for Russian navy is hundreds of times better than the Mistral, and Kuztnetsov is in desperate need of repair and modernization.

GarryB wrote:TR-1 raises a good point... a VSTOL aircraft for Russia would be a very specialist aircraft only needed in very small numbers... it makes rather more sense to go for an adapted land based aircraft.

Besides why waste money making a Mistral class carrier into a fixed wing carrier when a fixed wing carrier would be much better for the job?

When you have F-35s on your carrier how is having a $200 million dollar fighter more use to ground troops than the 10 Ka-52s you could have had for the same price?

To carry a decent air to ground load of weapons the F-35 has to give up its stealth completely so other than speed and range the Ka-52 would probably be the better air support choice.

For air to air defence of a naval group a bigger carrier with nuclear power will carry more fuel and more ordinance for larger potentially more capable aircraft... by the time the Japanese are putting F-35s on their ships the Russians will likely have PAK FAs on their new carriers and I think a naval PAK FA will be a better naval aircraft than the F-35... especially without having VSTOL capabilities to handicap its performance.          

GarryB wrote:
22DDW is much better than Mistral, at least the deck can sustain a jet based aircraft unlike Mistral.

TR1 wrote:

sepheronx wrote:

GarryB wrote:
22DDW is much better than Mistral, at least the deck can sustain a jet based aircraft unlike Mistral.

Which is irrelevant as far as Russia is concerned.

So I repeat to you: how is 22DDH much better than Mistral for Russia?

Firebird wrote:

flamming_python wrote:It opens the question as to why the Soviets were focusing on VTOL fixed-wing aircraft in the first place. Was it just a fad during the 60s-80s? Naval helicopter technology not being developed to a sufficient degree at that time?

Or was there something fundamentally different about Soviet naval doctrine (I don't think there was) as opposed to today's Russian doctrine?

I think emphasis WAS different to the USA. As was "key interests".
But also, the USSR had 4 Kiev class carriers commissioned in the 70s and 80s.
Ontop of that, 2 Kuznetsov class carriers. And 2 Ulyanovsk mega carriers(similar to Nimitz) being prepared at the end of the Soviet Union.Even the 2 Moskva class carriers were only a little over 20 yrs old in 1991.

Kievs had VSTOL, Moskvas were for choppers. But Uylanovsk and Kuznet are "true" carriers. So I think they were definitely moving towards a US equivalent doctrine. And the VTOL was showing problems, despite earlier promise.

What Russia has is a complete lack of carriers built for over 25 years or so, and others prematurely sold.

If the USSR had continued and been in a strong financial state, I see no reason why more than 2 Ulyanovsks would not have been in service. Ofcourse, this was hugely expensive for the USSR and is a huge drain on America for her own carriers, but looking at it this way, the 2 super powers werent THAT different. Despite what the "conventional wisdom" is today.

BTW, I actually think that the true winner of the cold war wasnt the US or ofcourse Russia, but actually places like China and India, who were able to concentrate on civillian industry and tech, to close the gap massively.

Flanky wrote:Guys i've seen some really out of the world comments in this topic.

Let me point out couple of things:

1.) Russians have just recently built Vikramaditya carrier for India
I think this was a very good lesson to them, what to do when, how much matterial, where to place what and why.
Basically their experience is now on the old level.

Flanky wrote:
2.) Based on their experience building the Indian ship, they probably know by now on 200% that Kuznetsov is utterly insufficient for bluewater navy.
And there are 2 reasons for that claim:
a) It is not nuclear powered and needs to refuel now and then.
b) There are no catapults. For a blue water navy you need to have logistics - air logistics as well. If you are in the middle of nowhere you need to have a transport plane being able to cover long distance to haul cargo. An equivalent of C-2 Greyhound. Somehow i cannot imagine that an aircraft like this would be able to get out ino the air by a mere skyjump.

Flanky wrote:
3.) You were talking much about the F-35. I personally doubt that aircraft will make it to the production. It will be canceled just like the RAH-66 Commanche was.
The program is having so many problems, which solution to that problems will increase the cost of single unit to a degree that it won't be affordable.
It isn't affordabe right now - countries will cut their orders and that will increase the cost of the plane even more.
Having listen to the experts that the plane is having problems with oxygen system, with control system, with structural weaknesses, with small wing size - those are just examples.
I would not see F-35 as a serious enemy when it comes to Naval deployment. If that programme survives, that plane wont be manufactured in huge numbers.

Flanky wrote:
4.) New Russian carrier will not have a unique focus on fleet air defense which was the role of Kuznetsov. New ship need to have balanced roles. It needs to be able to protect the fleet from air threats as much as it needs to be able to show ground attack capability. The fact that rest of the fleet will have significant ground attack capability is not an excuse of not having ground strike airplanes aboard. The reason for that is that often your targets aren't just stationary strategic infrastructure, but also moving mobile targets. For that you need some sort of observation in the area to determine what is target and what not - a piloted plane or a drone. So either way you need a strike plane or strike drone.

As far s i am aware of more experience a good thing.

b) Sounds like a question on how cargo should be hauled to the carrier which should be compared to how it was done before which i don't know.
On the issue of catapults i hear they experience problems in lower Temp. which is why there not being used.
On the issue of air transport i wonder if Russia is able to produce a light transport aircraft with a long enough range to bypass EU/NATO airspace and head to "the middle of nowhere" and return?

Unfortunately the F-35 will enter production and will be mass produced simply because unlike the RAH-66 there is no alternative, the F-22 is discontinued and the F-15/16/18 are approaching there expiration date, and we all know how much the U.S has to have the newest most advanced gizmo's, after all they never left the cold war.

MOSCOW, August 20. (ARMS-TASS). Modern warships of the Russian Navy until the Ukrainian power plants are equipped with state-owned enterprise manufacturing Research Complex for Gas Turbine (HP Research and Production Complex) "Zorya" - "Mashproekt", which is located in Nikolaev. According korr.ARMS-Tass on the "Day of Innovation Ministry of Defense of Russia" deputy head of marketing, "Zorya" - Mashproekt "Anatoly Stashok, the company performs a series of contracts for the supply of major power plants (power plant) for the latest Russian frigates" Admiral Gorshkov "( Project 22350) and the frigates of Project 11356.


Currently, ship propulsion power M7N1 54,000 hp put on the Baltic Shipyard "Yantar" for the head of Project 11356 frigate "Admiral Grigorovich." Finished making a second propulsion system for the first production of this project frigate "Admiral Essen." Ukrainian company has a contract for the next 2 years for the manufacture and supply of four more plants for the frigate "Admiral Makarov", "Admiral Butakov", "Admiral Istomin" and "Admiral Kornilov."


Manufactured and delivered to the Shipyard "Severnaya Verf" by the Russian company "Turborus", two M56 installation capacity of 60,000 hp for new Russian frigates of Project 22350 "Admiral Gorshkov" and "Admiral Kasatonov." Completed production plant for the third frigate of the project "Admiral Golovko."


At the same time, as reported korr.ARMS-TASS in the Rybinsk NPO "Saturn", currently underway, in particular, the preparatory work for the replacement of a power plant in the Ukrainian Project 11356 frigates for reversing the power turbine to the turbine, similar to the development of the Russian higher efficiency and lower fuel consumption.


As for the power plant for the Project 22350 frigates, it is produced jointly by Ukraine and Russia, as Russian companies are in the process of development of its production. "Zorya" - "Mashproekt" produces, in particular, only the gas generator and gearbox this setting, while the Russian company made turbine, and an automatic control system.


As reported in "Saturn", in the long term the new ships of the Russian Navy and the FSB Border Service is supposed to equip a new generation of power plants only domestic production development Rybinsk engine builders.


In particular, the Russian made engines M75RU capacity of 6-7 thousand horsepower and M70FRU (12-14 thousand HP), which are the basic highly economical automated ship's turbine-powered 4-th generation. In various combinations, they fully meet the current and future needs of the Navy and the FSB Border Service in the equipment of ships and boats, planned for construction in the next 10-15 years.


The most powerful engine in the family base for the fleet capacity of 27,000 M90 hp performed together until now "Zorya" - "Mashproekt" and Rybinsk "Saturn." However, in the long term, and its production will be conducted entirely in Russian enterprises. - 0-nn


Modern warships of the Russian Navy until fitted with Ukrainian power plants, but in the perspective of their production will be carried out in Russia