Russian Navy: Status & News #2

In Russia, work began on the creation of long-term destroyer

Development work on advanced destroyers of the "Leader" included in the state defense order in 2014, the work in this direction is already underway, said a source in the military-industrial complex. 

"Study of long-term appearance of the destroyer, or multi-purpose ship oceanic zone is present in the state defense order for 2014. Already begun work on the level of okra - will be developed technical project "- said the source of ITAR-TASS.

He stressed that the fleet "for a long time waiting for this ship", which should come to replace the ships of the third generation of projects 956 and 1155, which today form the basis of the fighting strength of the Navy general purpose of the oceanic zone.

"Our industry, which is charged with this task, has a very serious developments. Ministry of Defense has determined that the ship rather broad objectives and functions, including, perhaps, missile defense and aerospace counter "- said the source.

It will be a multi-purpose vehicle, which will have a "strike weapons contours, decent autonomy and seaworthiness and large displacement."

Option powerplant for the destroyer "Leader", he said, depends on the tactical and technical task, which prepares the fleet.

"Option can be atomic - it is more expensive, but extends the ship. Our industry is ready to create the reactor plants. It may be a gas turbine. Diesel is not an option, "- said the source.

Interesting article on the development of the Rus. Navy.

In short, it says the current plans for creating expeditionary and "show the flag" forces in distant lands will likely be abandoned. The focus will return to a cold war style navy focused on protecting the launch zones for the Navy's nuclear missile forces, enhancing the ability to fight regional conflicts around Russia's borders and strengthening the shore based aviation.

The article suggests the plans for building aircraft carriers should be shelved and the money spent on extra subs. Regarding the Mistrals, it believes the best option would be if France decides to cancel the contract and use the returned money for more useful purposes in the new political environment. If the Mistrals are supplied, they will likely be used as command ships.

  [url=lenta.ru/articles/2014/07/26/navychanges/]lenta.ru/articles/2014/07/26/navychanges/[/url]

Russian Naval Destroyer Moving to Mediterranean

MOSCOW, July 29 (RIA Novosti) – The Russian Navy’s Vice-Admiral Kulakov, an Udaloy-class destroyer, is moving to the eastern parts of the Mediterranean Sea, where it will join the permanent Russian naval task force, Northern Fleet spokesman Capt. 1st Rank Vadim Serga said.

Earlier this month, the Vice-Admiral Kulakov entered the port of La Valetta, Malta, where Northern Fleet sailors celebrated Russia’s Navy Day while berthed in Dock No. 6 at the Maltese shipyard.

“During the ceremonial meeting the captain of the ship has read the order assigning military ranks to the soldiers. Some military servants were awarded diplomas,” Serga said.

Earlier, the destroyer has also entered the port of Ceuta, Spain, and Cyprus’ port of Limasol.

The Vice-Admiral Kulakov set sail from the Northern Fleet’s main base in Severomorsk on April 15 and has traveled more than 10,000 nautical miles since then.

The destroyer was commissioned in 1982 and was on combat duty with the Northern Fleet until March 1991, when she was retired for repairs that lasted more than 18 years. The ship returned to the Severomorsk base on December 7, 2010.

Zelenodolsk building modular patrol ships for the Russian Navy

First pen in line is interesting

so from the graphics is obvious that "Khabarovsk" is a new type SSN

US submarine located, ‘pushed out’ of border waters - Russian Navy’s General Staff

MOSCOW, August 09, /ITAR-TASS/. Anti-submarine forces of the Russian Northern Fleet located and ‘pushed out’ from the Russian border waters a foreign submarine, a high-ranking representative of the Navy’s General Staff said on Saturday.

“On August 7, 2014, the Northern Fleet located in the Barents Sea a foreign submarine, supposedly of the Virginia class of the U.S. Navy,” the source said.

“Active actions of the Northern Fleet’s anti-submarine forces ‘pushed out’ the submarine from the border waters of the Russian Federation,” the source said. “The contact with the submarine lasted for about 27 minutes, and then the American submarine left the region.

Austin wrote:US submarine located, ‘pushed out’ of border waters - Russian Navy’s General Staff

MOSCOW, August 09, /ITAR-TASS/. Anti-submarine forces of the Russian Northern Fleet located and ‘pushed out’ from the Russian border waters a foreign submarine, a high-ranking representative of the Navy’s General Staff said on Saturday.

“On August 7, 2014, the Northern Fleet located in the Barents Sea a foreign submarine, supposedly of the Virginia class of the U.S. Navy,” the source said.

“Active actions of the Northern Fleet’s anti-submarine forces ‘pushed out’ the submarine from the border waters of the Russian Federation,” the source said. “The contact with the submarine lasted for about 27 minutes, and then the American submarine left the region.

Well, well, well...Austin do you know what this means? I'm about to do my best Mindstorm impersonation...Yet another Pentagon metropolitan myth busted! According to the Pentagon the Virginia-class submarines are the best (including stealthiest) attack submarines in the world, and will not have an equal for a very long time:

The Virginia-class of attack submarines surpasses the performance of any current projected threat submarine, ensuring U.S. undersea dominance well into the next century.

- U.S. Navy

http://www.public.navy.mil/subfor/hq/Pages/VirginiaClass.aspx

But yet one of their stealthiest subs (fitted with pumpjets even), were caught quickly and expelled soon after, while in comparison the Akula class attack sub (which the U.S. Navy and the Pentagon claims to be inferior to the Virginia-class) was loitering in the Gulf of Mexico for entire month undetected:

Russian Attack Submarine Sailed in Gulf of Mexico Undetected for Weeks

Silent Running

Russian attack submarine sailed in Gulf of Mexico undetected for weeks, U.S. officials say

BY: Bill Gertz, Washington Free Beacon

August 14, 2012

A Russian nuclear-powered attack submarine armed with long-range cruise missiles operated undetected in the Gulf of Mexico for several weeks and its travel in strategic U.S. waters was only confirmed after it left the region, the Washington Free Beacon has learned.

It is only the second time since 2009 that a Russian attack submarine has patrolled so close to U.S. shores.

The stealth underwater incursion in the Gulf took place at the same time Russian strategic bombers made incursions into restricted U.S. airspace near Alaska and California in June and July, and highlights a growing military assertiveness by Moscow.

The submarine patrol also exposed what U.S. officials said were deficiencies in U.S. anti-submarine warfare capabilities—forces that are facing cuts under the Obama administration’s plan to reduce defense spending by $487 billion over the next 10 years.

The Navy is in charge of detecting submarines, especially those that sail near U.S. nuclear missile submarines, and uses undersea sensors and satellites to locate and track them.

The fact that the Akula was not detected in the Gulf is cause for concern, U.S. officials said.

http://nation.foxnews.com/russia/2012/08/14/russian-attack-submarine-sailed-gulf-mexico-undetected-weeks

Let's consider the facts at hand:

1.) Virginia-class nuclear attack subs are double the price of Akula-Class nuclear attack subs.

2.) Virginia-class is at least 20 years more modern design, Akula-class was first put in to service in 1984, while Virginia-class was first put in to service in 2004.

3.) Consider how the Soviet/Russian naval military industry imploded, and surface and submarine tech innovation stagnated in the 90's (and it's still hurting to this day). Which leads me to my last point...

4.)...Despite all the things previously mentioned the U.S. Navy was incapable of detecting a 30 year old designed Akula-class sub (that was being maintained and serviced by a largely inept and incompetent Russian naval industry) for entire month, but the Virginia-class sub that is only a 10 year old design (and is maintained and serviced by the most competent and most capable naval industry in the world, the US naval industry) was detected immediately and repelled.


...With all things considered I think Obama, his advisers, the U.S. State Dept., the Pentagon, the CIA, and the Neo-Con's and their think tanks should really think twice before restarting the Cold War, Russia is no way comparable to Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and Russia is orders of magnitude and exponentially more capable military power  in comparison (I like to call Russia a superpower in hibernation  ).

"Sorry, we didn't know it was invisible." wrote:

 

Now lets speculate from where that submarine came? Since they only have food 2-3 months ,then it have to come from a military base not far from there.. Probably Norway?

Wooooow, mexican gulf? Are you kidding? There are almost no us naval ships right there.
They only go their for Shakedown cruises.

But the case of The US sub is completely different.
There are plenty of Naval Bases there ( all of the Russian Northern fleet ).
And alot of Russian subs, it is not weird or "bad" if you are detected right there.


Does this make sense to any of you?

August 8, 2014. GTRK Vladivostok. Russia, Vladivostok. Border patrol ship "Sapphire" (project 22460) was launched.

GarryB wrote:The gulf of Mexico is the soft underbelly of the US and an extraordinarily vulnerable place to allow enemy subs to operate... if they had the choice there is no way the USN would allow any subs from any nation other than their own to operate there.

There are just too many targets including oil rigs, and shipping... not to mention Russian subs with 2,500km range land attack cruise missiles could reach all sorts of targets from unexpected directions.

Detecting a Virginia class is a big deal... claims made to date suggest it should not be detectable... and not only is it detectable but they clearly identified the vessel type as well.

Yes, but the US Navy isn't patrolling in the Mexican Gulf!!
And the Russian Navy is patrolling alot in the area where the US sub was detected.

Flyingdutchman wrote:

GarryB wrote:The gulf of Mexico is the soft underbelly of the US and an extraordinarily vulnerable place to allow enemy subs to operate... if they had the choice there is no way the USN would allow any subs from any nation other than their own to operate there.

There are just too many targets including oil rigs, and shipping... not to mention Russian subs with 2,500km range land attack cruise missiles could reach all sorts of targets from unexpected directions.

Detecting a Virginia class is a big deal... claims made to date suggest it should not be detectable... and not only is it detectable but they clearly identified the vessel type as well.

Yes, but the US Navy isn't patrolling in the Mexican Gulf!!
And the Russian Navy is patrolling alot in the area where the US sub was detected.

So what your saying is that the U.S. govt. isn't interested in physically securing Gulf of Mexico oil?  

magnumcromagnon wrote:

Flyingdutchman wrote:

GarryB wrote:The gulf of Mexico is the soft underbelly of the US and an extraordinarily vulnerable place to allow enemy subs to operate... if they had the choice there is no way the USN would allow any subs from any nation other than their own to operate there.

There are just too many targets including oil rigs, and shipping... not to mention Russian subs with 2,500km range land attack cruise missiles could reach all sorts of targets from unexpected directions.

Detecting a Virginia class is a big deal... claims made to date suggest it should not be detectable... and not only is it detectable but they clearly identified the vessel type as well.

Yes, but the US Navy isn't patrolling in the Mexican Gulf!!
And the Russian Navy is patrolling alot in the area where the US sub was detected.

So what your saying is that the U.S. govt. isn't interested in physically securing Gulf of Mexico oil?  

Thats not what i am saying at all.
But please give me some links where i can read that the US Navy is actively patrolling the gulf of Mexico, because as far i know they don't.

Flyingdutchman wrote:

magnumcromagnon wrote:

Flyingdutchman wrote:

GarryB wrote:The gulf of Mexico is the soft underbelly of the US and an extraordinarily vulnerable place to allow enemy subs to operate... if they had the choice there is no way the USN would allow any subs from any nation other than their own to operate there.

There are just too many targets including oil rigs, and shipping... not to mention Russian subs with 2,500km range land attack cruise missiles could reach all sorts of targets from unexpected directions.

Detecting a Virginia class is a big deal... claims made to date suggest it should not be detectable... and not only is it detectable but they clearly identified the vessel type as well.

Yes, but the US Navy isn't patrolling in the Mexican Gulf!!
And the Russian Navy is patrolling alot in the area where the US sub was detected.

So what your saying is that the U.S. govt. isn't interested in physically securing Gulf of Mexico oil?  

Thats not what i am saying at all.
But please give me some links where i can read that the US Navy is actively patrolling the gulf of Mexico, because as far i know they don't.

FAIL...stop kidding yourself, the US Navy doesn't patrol the Gulf of Mexico?   What utter rubbish:

The U.S. Navy operates a strategic nuclear submarine base at Kings Bay, Georgia. The base is homeport to eight missile-firing submarines, six of them equipped with nuclear-tipped missiles, and two armed with conventional warhead missiles.

http://freebeacon.com/national-security/silent-running/

https://www.cnic.navy.mil/regions/cnrse/installations/navsubbase_kings_bay/about/history.html

I'm sure those U.S. naval assets based in Georgia clearly avoid the Gulf of Mexico, clearly they travel by land to get to the oceans that they want to patrol...   

magnumcromagnon wrote:

Flyingdutchman wrote:

magnumcromagnon wrote:

Flyingdutchman wrote:

GarryB wrote:The gulf of Mexico is the soft underbelly of the US and an extraordinarily vulnerable place to allow enemy subs to operate... if they had the choice there is no way the USN would allow any subs from any nation other than their own to operate there.

There are just too many targets including oil rigs, and shipping... not to mention Russian subs with 2,500km range land attack cruise missiles could reach all sorts of targets from unexpected directions.

Detecting a Virginia class is a big deal... claims made to date suggest it should not be detectable... and not only is it detectable but they clearly identified the vessel type as well.

Yes, but the US Navy isn't patrolling in the Mexican Gulf!!
And the Russian Navy is patrolling alot in the area where the US sub was detected.

So what your saying is that the U.S. govt. isn't interested in physically securing Gulf of Mexico oil?  

Thats not what i am saying at all.
But please give me some links where i can read that the US Navy is actively patrolling the gulf of Mexico, because as far i know they don't.

FAIL...stop kidding yourself, the US Navy doesn't patrol the Gulf of Mexico?   What utter rubbish:

The U.S. Navy operates a strategic nuclear submarine base at Kings Bay, Georgia. The base is homeport to eight missile-firing submarines, six of them equipped with nuclear-tipped missiles, and two armed with conventional warhead missiles.

http://freebeacon.com/national-security/silent-running/

https://www.cnic.navy.mil/regions/cnrse/installations/navsubbase_kings_bay/about/history.html

I'm sure those U.S. naval assets based in Georgia clearly avoid the Gulf of Mexico, clearly they travel by land to get to the oceans that they want to patrol...   

Kings bay, Georgia is close to Florida on the east-coast.
So what they patrol is the Atlantic.
And of course a few will pay a visit to the mexican gulf, but they patrol in the atlantic the most.

And WTF what ocean borders the mexican gulf?
WHY should submarines sail into the gulf ofMexico  when travelling to another Ocean? 

Do you even know where the Gulf of Mexico lays?

My mistake I haven't slept in 2 days, however Mississippi has U.S. coast guard installations.

magnumcromagnon wrote:My mistake I haven't slept in 2 days, however Mississippi has U.S. coast guard installations.

No problem  
Try to get some sleep buddy  

Admiral: the incident with the submarine reveals the increasing surveillance
http://ria.ru/defense_safety/20140809/1019418352.html

MOSCOW, August 9 - RIA Novosti. Developments with the removal of the military training area of the Northern Fleet submarine American reveals the increasing pursuit of NATO for the Russian ships, ex-commander of the Northern Fleet, a member of the Marine Board of the Government of the Russian Federation, Admiral Vyacheslav Popov.

 
On Saturday, a senior source in the General Staff of the Navy, told RIA Novosti that on August 7 antisubmarine forces of the Northern Fleet discovered and "expelled" from the Russian border waters a foreign submarine allegedly class "Virginia" Navy USA.

"Tracking the United States Navy submarines for the actions of the Russian navy is traditional. It has not changed since the Soviet era, at times the intensity of their activities decreased, but now we can talk about increasing the activity of ships and submarines, NATO, including the United States, the Russian shores" - RIA Novosti said Popov.


 He stressed that, despite repeated offers by the Soviet and Russian leaders to conclude an agreement on the avoidance of incidents under water, Americans still refuses.

"The United States does not want to take on the obligations associated with the contract, and that is what motivated their actions and near the Russian coast," - says the Admiral.

Flyingdutchman wrote: There are almost no us naval ships right there.

Does this make sense to any of you?

I understand what you say.. That because US is not properly defending that zone ,that Russia can penetrate it.   
That still does not change the fact that US Gov is not prepared to defend against a Russia in case of war if attacked
from the south. Any Russian attack from the Gulf of mexico with a cruise missile can reach the white house and
they will not see it until it explode.   

Vulnerable points of USA are attacks from the south  from the gulf of mexico or attacks from the artic that are more harder to detect by satellites at least this is what Russia have said. Vulnerable places against Russia i think are from the far east that they do not have many defenses there.. Still they will have plenty of time to counter attacks from the east because of its Huge Territory.. RUssia have near 4 times the size of US main land.

Take a look at Russia Sams defenses coverage.
s-300s and S-400s Looks like a real nightmare for NATO to fly over there?   



but in that map is not included the passive defenses that Russia have of BUKs -TORS and Pansirs.. those will not be seen by NATO until they have a missile on their tail. And if fly too close of a pantsir will not see anything at all ,until they hit.

Compare that with Libya what NATO had to face.. 4 lonely S-200 that where easily overwhelmed
with 100+ tomahawks missiles. their core defenses where short range S-75 that are next to useless against cruise missiles.




NATO is not really prepared to a conventional war with Russia. They will not have ever Air superiority in an invasion and without their airforces they are all doomed . Their Tanks will not survive A kornet-D attack or Russian precision lazer artillery and the Iskanders will rain over their heads with 7 meters precision and 750kg warhead . thats going to hurt. In georgia Russia said they destroyed 28 georgian tanks in 1-2 hits. 

Compare that to the coverage of the U.S..... Probably a huge difference (as in Russia has more). Russia may not have a lot of radar coverage to the east, but there isn't "much there" (population etc.). Also, aren't most of Russian SAMs mobile anyway? They could simply be moved to the east or anywhere else accessible. (That map also doesn't include OTH radars, but those are more for detecting missiles. - Also doesn't include naval radar coverage, but that is completely mobile so it couldn't be mapped. Same thing with airborne radar.)

Mike E wrote:Compare that to the coverage of the U.S..... Probably a huge difference (as in Russia has more). Russia may not have a lot of radar coverage to the east, but there isn't "much there" (population etc.). Also, aren't most of Russian SAMs mobile anyway? They could simply be moved to the east or anywhere else accessible. (That map also doesn't include OTH radars, but those are more for detecting missiles. - Also doesn't include naval radar coverage, but that is completely mobile so it couldn't be mapped. Same thing with airborne radar.)

Russia Radar coverage is very good actually..  the previous pictures were Surface missiles internal radar coverage that only covers ~400km  . Take a look at their Vorodez Radars..4,000km+ cover near all Africa , all europe .. this was in 2009.. now they have a few more radars.




This ballistic space radar coverage.. as 2013.