Russian Navy: Status & News #2

Big_Gazza wrote:

Austin wrote:With 6 Gorshkov coming only by 2025 which is long time to build just 6 ship but I think its mainly due to engine issues , What other class are they building and in what number to over come the shortfall and delays with Gorshkov.

Even the 1135.6 class ships are affected by Engine issue so no more ship of that class either , so what else is there on table ?

Concentrate on large numbers of small patrol boats, missile corvettes, frigates to rebuild the fleet from the bottom up?  These kinds of ships operating under the cover of land-based aviation will give Russia very capable area-denial capabilities against anything but a full CBG, especially if the small boats can carry kalibres and hypersonic Zircons.

I want to see confirmation that a Zircon can be launched from a standard 8-tube UKSK or 3C-14 VLS, and that all ships with these silos are zircon-capable.  Hopefully its not just the refurbished Kirov class (and Slava?) that can carry them.

I did not hear thet Slave will be refurbished. I do not think Zircon will requires many changes ot UKSK if any. As for frigates I believe this is realistic decision. The only thing worrying me is poor AA defences of 22800 and no ASW. I mean not to make then ASW chasers but for example Paket for torpedo defences...and navalized Pantsir to fend off air assault. With ranges 3000miles they not necessarily operate 300km from shore and not always under protection of external ASW/AAD shield.

Big_Gazza wrote:......................

These modern corvettes pack a lot of punch into a small displacement.  Buyan-M have <1000T displacement yet have anti-ship firepower equal to a Soviet-era Sovremmeny (8000T), and can engage land targets.  A great little ship for littoral defense.......

Nobody is disputing quality of Buyan-Ms. They are great ships but like you said they are for littoral defense. If there is one thing that Russian Navy has perfected it is littoral defense, no argument there. We are talking about further out, that is where the problem is.

Also, can we please stop calling Buyans and 22800s corvettes because they are not corvettes, they are missile boats.

Big_Gazza wrote:...........
The first units of Gorshkov class are slow as they are a quantum leap ahead of anything Russia has built before, and complex tech takes time to fully integrate and work out the bugs.  Ukropistani trouble-making and engine supply problems will cause grief in the short-medium term, but developing a domestic naval engine capability is an essential component of an independent MIC, and its well overdue.

Kirov and Slava-class were also quantum leap back in a day but they were never built in sufficient numbers. This is where the problem is. Gorshkov-class is excellent and much needed ship but building them in just one shipyard will mean that it will end up as Slava-class before it. Always is high demand and always in short supply and by the time they do (or even if) they build enough of them they will already be obsolete.

They have to start building these ships in more than one shipyard. Take US Navy for example. People think that they control the oceans because they have aircraft carriers. Wrong.
It's because they have huge number of destroyers that they kept continuously building and upgrading for decades at several different shipyards. And they still build them.

GunshipDemocracy wrote:...................
I did not hear thet Slave will be refurbished. I do not think Zircon will requires many changes ot UKSK if any. As for frigates I believe  this is realistic decision. The only thing worrying me is poor AA defences of 22800 and no ASW. I mean not to make then ASW chasers but for example Paket for torpedo defences...and navalized Pantsir to fend off air assault.  With ranges 3000miles they not necessarily operate 300km from shore and not always under protection of external ASW/AAD shield.

Zircon will be fully compatible with UKSK launcher (one of design requirements) and any ship equipped with UKSK will be able to carry Zircons (not that they will, of course, overkill much).

If they make effort to develop horizontal UKSK launcher then upgrading Slava and other classes with similar setup will be very easy. And it would turn them into real beasts.

GarryB wrote:....................

Those complaining that they have no blue water capability yet... gotta walk before you fly.

There is no point in building sea going frigates if there are no corvettes to protect the home waters. No point in carriers and cruisers if there are no destroyers and frigates and corvettes to do the boring stuff.

...................

But they already know how to walk and very well. Kilo-subs, Buyans, 2280, etc.... It's not the tech that is the problem it is the speed of construction.

I don't know what is stopping them from focusing on couple of good platforms and mass producing them in several shipyards simultaneously. Once the produce one platform in numbers focus on the next big thing in the same way.


Also, do you guys think that we will see horizontal UKSK launcher developed for RU Navy? It would greatly aid upgrading of Soviet ships.

PapaDragon wrote: I don't know what is stopping them from focusing on couple of good platforms and mass producing them in several shipyards simultaneously. Once the produce one platform in numbers focus on the next big thing in the same way.

Well I am also wondering what exactly was influencing decisions to make so many types/subtypes of small ships instead of mass producing one model. maybe pace of external situation? (US aggression against  Ukraine, Syria/Turkey)?

PapaDragon wrote:
Also, do you guys think that we will see horizontal UKSK launcher developed for RU Navy? It would greatly aid upgrading of Soviet ships.

I hope they do. All in all in 949 subs there is replacement one P-700 Granit for 3 Calibrs...Maybe with ration 2 Kalibrs for one P-500 make nicey  upgrade. Hopefully with all OSA replaced by Pantsirs but only my fantasizing

PapaDragon wrote: Nobody is disputing quality of Buyan-Ms. They are great ships but like you said they are for littoral defense. If there is one thing that Russian Navy has perfected it is littoral defense, no argument there. We are talking about further out, that is where the problem is.

Also, can we please stop calling Buyans and 22800s corvettes because they are not corvettes, they are missile boats.

True but PGG 618 TUOJIANG or Visby prove that you can have corvette with 800t not only missile boat.

GarryB wrote:

Also, can we please stop calling Buyans and 22800s corvettes because they are not corvettes, they are missile boats.

It makes more sense to call them corvettes because that indicates their size as being below that of a Frigate. A missile boat could be anything... you could call a Kirov a missile boat.

As shown in the photo above they have a gun at the front and the main missile armament is on the rear deck in containers that are not integral to the ship so it is hard to call them missile ships any more than you could call a massive container ship with container loaded Kalibr missiles is a missile boat...

not exactly anything...In Russian 22800 are called MRK (: Малый ракетный корабль - small missile ship)

Their definition according to wiki rank 3 ships:

Small missile ship (MRK) — a combat surface ship with a displacement of 650-1050 tons, with diesel or diesel-gas turbine main propulsion plant, missile-artillery armament designed to destroy any combat ships and transport ships of the enemy, reconnaissance and patrol, provide security and cover for convoys and amphibious landings in the coastal regions and near sea zone.

So guess Kirov size won´t fit

franco wrote:Americans say Russian Navy operating at 44% strength of the American Fleet

http://mil.today/2016/Navy5/

This is impressive since Russia is not operating the world's biggest imperial navy of all time. Considering that Russia's
navy is in the middle of a massive upgrade, one begins to see why Washington is on the war path. By 2030 the
world will be a very different place if Russia keeps developing.

With only 6 Gorshkovs (is that even confirmed?) by 2025... Doesn't sound like a massive upgrade to me. The Chinese Navy on the other hand... (Luckily, that is a good thing for Russia, because they are pretty much tying up most of the US Navy already, let alone in 2030.)  

Here's the actual comparison (this seems to be from 2012, but whatever): http://rusnavy.com/nowadays/structure/techreadiness2012/

And George, I also feel that 44% is way too high. It seems that they are giving quite a bit of weight to littoral ships, which the US doesn't really have. I guess that's fair enough, but how many of those small ships are actually operational atm in the Russian Navy or even viable past 2020? Are most of them really 1/3 "as capable" as destroyers? Especially the older ones, not to mention that lightly armed patrol boats might also be included. 25% sounds closer to me, and even that only after most of the upgrades are complete. But IMO, that woudn't actually be too bad.

franco wrote:Americans say Russian Navy operating at 44% strength of the American Fleet

http://mil.today/2016/Navy5/

44% is very, very optimistic on Russian side as just various types of carriers in US navy have probably more gross tonnage than whole Russian fleet both surface and submarines combined.

Kimppis wrote:With only 6 Gorshkovs (is that even confirmed?) by 2025... Doesn't sound like a massive upgrade to me. The Chinese Navy on the other hand... (Luckily, that is a good thing for Russia, because they are pretty much tying up most of the US Navy already, let alone in 2030.)  

Here's the actual comparison (this seems to be from 2012, but whatever): http://rusnavy.com/nowadays/structure/techreadiness2012/

And George, I also feel that 44% is way too high. It seems that they are giving quite a bit of weight to littoral ships, which the US doesn't really have. I guess that's fair enough, but how many of those small ships are actually operational atm in the Russian Navy or even viable past 2020? Are most of them really 1/3 "as capable" as destroyers? Especially the older ones, not to mention that lightly armed patrol boats might also be included. 25% sounds closer to me, and even that only after most of the upgrades are complete. But IMO, that woudn't actually be too bad.

Those tiny useless ships in the Caspian sure shocked a few deciders in the west when they launched salvos of cruise missiles at
targets in Syria a few months ago. It seems that most in this thread are obsessed with obsolete category sorting and not the
actual firepower of new Russian ships. In this case the 44% is not BS but the real deal. Things have changed. Keep on counting
the number of Gorshkovs as if that is all that matters.

KVS, Kimmpis has been trolling or is either completely delusional, but he seems to forget how effective the ships have been. These small ships pack such a punch that yes, size matter doesnt really matter anymore.

GarryB wrote:
Garry says 80% of such statistics are bullshit and are often made up on the spot. The remaining 40% of statistics rarely ever add up, but few people think about it and just take it at face value.

Not sure if intentional.

New ships:

4th ship of project 22160 has been laid down.
name is Sergey Kotov
http://www.tatar-inform.ru/news/2016/05/08/502882/


New coast guard ship Project 22460 launched.
Name is Provorny
http://sdelanounas.ru/blogs/77391/

Some of the posters on this forum... Overreacting much? HOW THE HELL AM I TROLLING! Even if my post my was a bit misleading, now that I think about it.

I did not intend to downplay the effectiveness of those ships and I even said the following: "It seems that they are giving quite a bit of weight to littoral ships, which the US doesn't really have. I guess that's fair enough..." And when I mentioned their viability, I wasn't actually talking about Buyan-Ms and other newer classes, but about the older ones, or even patrol boats that are potentially included in those statistics.

Really, are 3 Buyan-Ms (as an example) really overall as capable as a single US Navy destroyer? Well, probably not. Just pointing that out. 24 missiles, with comparatively weak air defences vs. 96 VLS cells.

But of course, then you can ask is that really the whole story? Certainly not, I'm not trying to say anything on the contrary. There are many other things to consider. Buyan-Ms are mainly supposed to operate in the littorals, within range of friendly shore-based defences, airfract, etc. and they should also be quite small and stealthly targets. I'm aware of that.

It's just that the comparison seems to directly compare the Russian and US Navy, and that's why it's, IMO, pretty misleading to say that in a 1:1 Navy vs. Navy confrontation, the Russian Navy is around 40% as capable as the US Navy. And again, as I think I actually pointed out, I'm not saying that those kind of comparisons are necessarily all that relevant.

Not to mention that Militarov and George actually said pretty much the the same thing...

And I didn't say that Gorshkovs are all that matter, but the situation is not optimal. Of course Grigorovich-class is also a thing. Even 6 Gorshkovs by 2025 might be OK, if the building speed somehow considerably improves past 2025... Like 1 Gorshkov commissioned per year on average after that or something. They are very capable and they can keep ordering them for decades to come. But if they are really only getting 6 of them by 2025, when are they going to start building new destroyers? Of course they can, and they will be building both at the same time, but... well.

Agreed. What I meant was indeed simply on paper, 1 vs 1 (or well, in that case maybe 1 vs 3). Which is kind of a pointless comparison, but so is that on paper comparison between the Russian and US Navies. (And btw, why are they weighting it 1 vs 3, why not 1 vs 5 or 1 vs 8? Well, whatever.)

I've really been wondering does the "general public", or well, your average Youtube/National Interest/etc. commentator actually understand that wars are not fought in a "vacuum"? You know, in some kind of "simulated" environment. Many of those US military fans think the the US military is not limited by geography, by logistics and that asymmetrical capabilities don't exist. That for instance in order to counter an aircraft close to your own shore, you need an aircraft carrier yourself. That China needs supercarriers to counter the US Navy in the first island chain. That the Russian military is trying or that it even needs to counter the whole of Nato 1:1 on paper? Yeah, because those Portuguese and Belgian troops are going to be so useful in the east, or for that matter, anywhere else... OK, that's a little off-topic, but the internet is full of those kind of "arguments".

GarryB wrote:

Also, do you guys think that we will see horizontal UKSK launcher developed for RU Navy? It would greatly aid upgrading of Soviet ships.

Might be useful on the Slava class, but most of the rest would be better retired and replaced.

Then why not to replace 16xP-500 with say 48/64xKh-35 in upgraded version. Guess saturation attack against any naval ship group would be success.

GarryB wrote:

Well I am also wondering what exactly was influencing decisions to make so many types/subtypes of small ships instead of mass producing one model. maybe pace of external situation? (US aggression against  Ukraine, Syria/Turkey)?

they have four fleets that operate in very different conditions with very different potential opponents... I doubt one design would suffice.

One modular? like 22160?

GarryB wrote:

So guess Kirov size won´t fit

the description of a small missile boat is Soviet talk... they had small missile boats and small torpedo boats... collectively called corvettes. Now they just have small missile boats... also corvettes.

This is maybe Soviet talk but still AFAIK offically used in Russian Navy.
Official class is rocket/artillery ship subclass: small missile ship for 22800

Stealthflanker wrote:The traditional double hull layout of Russian submarine already offer survivability against mines or torpedo.

One can of course make longer standoff between outer "light hull" and pressure hull, but this directly increase the submarine's size.

On a related note Stealthflanker, will the Yasen & Borei both use the same type of nuclear reactor?

GarryB wrote:

Then why not to replace 16xP-500 with say 48/64xKh-35 in upgraded version. Guess saturation attack against any naval ship group would be success.

The Kh-35 is for patrol vessels and aircraft use, on paper having more is better, but the layered defences of most navies are optimised to defend against a numbers subsonic attack... the whole purpose of supersonic anti ship missiles is to reduce the reaction time of the target to increase the chances of missiles getting through.

In other words it is better to have 16 missiles that can get through than to have 100 missiles that probably wont... even when most of the time a single unexpected missile generally has a very good chance of penetrating even the best defences.

I am sure that saturation attack is not that bad idea, Kalibrs are also subsonic ... and western systems surely are or soon will be upgraded also to fight supersonic AShMs,

But Kh-35 range would be insufficient then probably if 2 Kalibrs for one P-500 is still good trade. Of course AAD/ASW nice to upgrade too.

One modular? like 22160?

Modular actually makes more sense in larger ships.... a vessel with the capacity for 10 vertical launch bins that can be varied... ie for a surface to air role you have one or two UKSK launchers and the other 8-9 launch bins being SAMs of various types.

For very small ships where only one or two launch bins are possible anyway it becomes less useful... though from a logistics and training perspective it is still good system as all standard options are available... ie it can still carry land attack or anti ship or anti sub weapons in any combination.

well but project 22160 are already modular just in current variant issued as patrol ships to me is a bit ilogical not to build en mass 22160 in different variants they can still have 8 kalibrs, helo, Paket and Shtill vls wqhat is not bad at all.

This is maybe Soviet talk but still AFAIK offically used in Russian Navy.
Official class is rocket/artillery ship subclass: small missile ship for 22800

It is also Official to call an assault rifle an avtomat. Are you going to stop referring to Assault Rifles and only ever call them avtomats?

I never joined the Soviet or Russian navy, and am therefore not bound by their rules and traditions.

[/quote]



True, but I am glad I have helped you to expand horizons wrt small missile ships i.e. that this is not name for big ones just 3rd rank boat in RN

The sixth nuclear submarine of project 885 "Yasen" will lay 29 July

http://ria.ru/defense_safety/20160517/1435010651.html

Russia is not discussing the possibility of transfer in leasing of India the submarine "Pike-B"

РИА Новости http://ria.ru/world/20160517/1435156971.html#ixzz48vVDMVzl