Home
Latest images
Register
Log in
No system can protect against saturated attack.
+80
KiloGolf
eehnie
nemrod
Tolstoy
Kimppis
Ned86
SeigSoloyvov
AK-Rex
Isos
OminousSpudd
ult
Backinblack
jhelb
nastle77
artjomh
nobunaga
Maximmmm
PapaDragon
Ranxerox71
Svyatoslavich
JohninMK
Cucumber Khan
chicken
Dima
mack8
Rmf
Mr.Comrade
RedJasmin
VladimirSahin
franco
GunshipDemocracy
higurashihougi
Book.
max steel
Big_Gazza
Naval Fan
Zivo
TheSentinel
Tyloe
flamming_python
Honesroc
Kyo
GarryB
wilhelm
medo
sepheronx
kvs
calripson
Werewolf
type055
redgiacomo
AlfaT8
Cyberspec
TheArmenian
Mike E
magnumcromagnon
Vann7
George1
TR1
T055
runaway
fragmachine
coolieno99
Hannibal Barca
collegeboy16
eridan
Asf
Firebird
zg18
gaurav
Morpheus Eberhardt
KomissarBojanchev
RTN
xeno
Vympel
Flyingdutchman
Stealthflanker
navyfield
Viktor
Austin
84 posters
Russian Navy: Status & News #2
sepheronx- Posts : 8527
Points : 8789
Join date : 2009-08-06
Age : 34
Location : Canada
GunshipDemocracy- Posts : 5985
Points : 6005
Join date : 2015-05-17
Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada
sepheronx wrote:No system can protect against saturated attack.
true, but of course there are cost effectiveness questions...production is only part of life cycle costs i am afraid
sepheronx- Posts : 8527
Points : 8789
Join date : 2009-08-06
Age : 34
Location : Canada
More produced, cheaper it can become.
GunshipDemocracy- Posts : 5985
Points : 6005
Join date : 2015-05-17
Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada
sepheronx wrote:More produced, cheaper it can become.
Unit cost only, TCO no. BTW where is best to address topics on INF ?
PapaDragon- Posts : 13264
Points : 13306
Join date : 2015-04-26
Location : Fort Evil, Serbia
GunshipDemocracy wrote:,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Onyx is supersonic.
Kalibr is subsonic but that is not anti ship missile.
GunshipDemocracy- Posts : 5985
Points : 6005
Join date : 2015-05-17
Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada
PapaDragon wrote:GunshipDemocracy wrote:,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Onyx is supersonic.
Kalibr is subsonic but that is not anti ship missile.
oops 3M54 too?
Isos
Isos- Posts : 11296
Points : 11266
Join date : 2015-11-06
Dima wrote:
Russian Navy can certainly afford a modification of this 1135 and bring it out with a helipad, hanger and new structures atop the bridge (which anyway is skeletal) like the 11356. The Asw tubes need to be replaced completely and the front can be worked for a A-100 and 36-72 cell Shtil-1/9M96E2. Installations that require much deeper deck penetration like RBU and UKSK can be done away with. Such a modification which is likely within the capacity of 1135 would give a significant boost to its capability from what it is now and be more of an AD frigate.
It will costs as much as a new frigate. Better go for a replacement. However this class is really outdated in design and armement.
Dima- Posts : 1222
Points : 1233
Join date : 2012-03-22
No chance it will cost as much as a new frigate. Actually its a light one in terms of structural addition and would hardly make much difference on the tonnage.Isos wrote:It will costs as much as a new frigate. Better go for a replacement. However this class is really outdated in design and armement.
The stern modification will include replacing the 76mm/100mm guns and having a new helipad and hanger.
Fore section will include replacing those ASW missiles and preparing the deck for AD missiles and an A-100E. I have not even considered the RBU or UKSK for the installation as both of them need deeper deck penetration.
The bridge structure should get atleast the 11356 standard installation atop for all those search/track/ecm/navigation etc systems.
(I specifically mentioned "atleast 11356 standard" coz even the 11356 can/should be upgraded to have newer masts with AESA radar pannels showcased by NIIR Phazatron.)
The result of such a modernization would be good AD frigate(s) that can be in service for 10+ years with no less than 64 x medium-long-range AD missiles. It would be a good investment in my opinion considering the shortage of ships.
GarryB- Posts : 38916
Points : 39412
Join date : 2010-03-30
Location : New Zealand
Actually we have seen their new modular universal weapon launchers for cruise missiles and SAMs, but it would be interesting if they developed modular systems for existing types and smaller vessels .
For instance a vertical launch system for Uran that could use the new upgraded 240km range models of the missile plus some alternative designs.
I remember a while back they showed a model of a reduced size Uran for helos that was lighter and smaller and had a shorter range for smaller patrol craft and helos and light aircraft to use.
equally an IIR or optically guided model for land attack uses would be interesting as well.
Something that doesn't require three deck levels of vertical space to install...
perhaps unify it with the Shtil SAM or perhaps an upgraded TOR so it can take all sorts of missile types that as smaller draft and can cover the upper deck space of an existing vessel with minor modifications.
For instance a vertical launch system for Uran that could use the new upgraded 240km range models of the missile plus some alternative designs.
I remember a while back they showed a model of a reduced size Uran for helos that was lighter and smaller and had a shorter range for smaller patrol craft and helos and light aircraft to use.
equally an IIR or optically guided model for land attack uses would be interesting as well.
Something that doesn't require three deck levels of vertical space to install...
perhaps unify it with the Shtil SAM or perhaps an upgraded TOR so it can take all sorts of missile types that as smaller draft and can cover the upper deck space of an existing vessel with minor modifications.
nemrod- Posts : 839
Points : 1333
Join date : 2012-09-11
Age : 59
- Post n°885
Russia Is Set to Build 12 New Monster Warships Armed with 200 Missiles
nemrod Sun Jun 05, 2016 2:05 pm
http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/russia-set-build-12-new-monster-warships-armed-200-missiles-16427
Russia Is Set to Build 12 New Monster Warships Armed with 200 Missiles Each
Dave Majumdar
June 1, 2016
Tweet Share Share
Printer-friendly version
Russia’s United Shipbuilding Corporation (USC) is expected to sign a contract with the Kremlin to build a massive new warship called Project 23560 Lider (or Leader in English) after the design is finalized later this year.
"At present, Preliminary Design 23560 Leader is under consideration at the Ministry of Defense,” Igor Ponomarev, USC vice president for military shipbuilding told state-owned RIA Novosti. “After a positive decision, we expect to sign a contract to develop and design the ship under terms defined by the Ministry of Defense.”
The new warship is classified as a destroyer but will displace 17,500 metric tons, with a length of 200m (656.2ft) and a beam of 20m (65.6ft)—making it larger than most World War II-era heavy cruisers. Indeed, the Leader-class—which is expected to be armed with no fewer than 200 missiles—will be the second largest modern surface combatants built after the four massive 28,000-ton nuclear-powered Project 1144 Orlan battle-cruisers (better known as the Kirov-class).
The new warship is being designed with anti-aircraft, anti-ballistic missile, anti-surface and anti-submarine capability. It is also likely to have a significant land-attack capability using long-range cruise missiles such as the Kalibr-NK. From what little is known about the Leader-class, the vessels are expected to be equipped with 60 anti-ship cruise missiles, 128 anti-aircraft guided missiles and 16 anti-ship guided missiles. There are no details available about the exact mix of missiles that are expected to be carried onboard, but the air defense systems are likely to be based on either the S-400 or S-500 while some of the anti-ship weapons are likely to be variants of the Zircon hypersonic missile.
The Russians have not said much about the Leader-class’ propulsion system—but the vessel is expected to be nuclear powered and will likely reach speeds well in excess of 30 knots. It would also likely be able to remain at sea for up to 90 days without support. Late last year, the U.S. Navy’s Office of Naval Intelligence suggested that the Russians would build a dozen of the new warships.
“Depending on propulsion type, the design could be a 8,000 to 18,000 ton ship combining both destroyer and cruiser characteristics with robust air, surface, and submarine warfare, as well as anti-missile defense capabilities. Russia reportedly intends to build six such ships for both the Northern and Pacific fleets (12 total),” reads an ONI report on the Russian Navy. “The lead unit is not likely to be built earlier than the mid-2020s. Press reports have mentioned that the propulsion for this class, whether conventional gas turbine or nuclear, is not yet determined. The resolution may depend on decisions yet to be made regarding a new aircraft carrier which, if built, is likely to be nuclear-powered.”
Assuming that Russia can build the Leader-class given its current economic situation, the massive new warships would outgun the largest surface combatants in the U.S. Navy’s fleet—carrying roughly double an Arleigh Burke-class destroyer’s missile tubes. Moreover, the Leader-class’ nuclear propulsion system would allow the enormous new warships the ability to sortie around the globe without the need for auxiliary refuelers or any requirement to make a port call. That would afford Moscow a potent power projection tool that’s just short of a carrier strike group.
Dave Majumdar is the defense editor for The National Interest. You can follow him on Twitter: @davemajumdar.
eehnie- Posts : 2425
Points : 2428
Join date : 2015-05-13
I would not expect reforms on ships unless they are some of the biggest. The last 25 years Russia has been selecting the best of its fleet while reducing its size with early decommissions.
Surely the recent new strategy for the Russian Navy of 2015 marks the point where this process of early decommissions to reduce the size of the fleet has been finished. The next logical step would be to stop decommissions keeping stable the total number of ships of the fleet, but increasing the reserve of ships until its saturation while decreasing still the number of active ships. New decommissions only would come for ships lost, damaged or for ships that come to the end of its cycle of life (old to very old). The early decommision of warships is a bad business only logical for a fast reduction of the fleet, that surely will not continue.
in the refered to the production of new ships, Russia is increasing a little its production of new ships, to cover new needs and to open new lines of production of modern ships of every type. Since new decommissions will be very rare until 2023 approximately, and about 3 by year in 2023-2030, the production of ships will remain low still despite to be higher than in the previous period.
It means that in the following 8-10 years surely the focus will be more in the opening of new lines of production of modern ships of every type and the replacement of foreign components, than in the production of new ships. To complete the new projects of destroyers and aircraft carriers and its production lines will be important in the next decade.
Still, one of the main problems of the Russian Navy that need to be solved by organizational changes, is that with a single budget need to afford the equipment of too many internal branches of very different nature, with the result of having less modern equipment than other similar forces. As example, the Russian Naval Aviation having older equipment than the Russian Aerospace Forces, the Russian Naval Infantry having older equipment than the Russian Army or the Russian Airborne Troops, or the Coastal Artillery having different calibers and having lower standards on the safety of the crew by the use of tractor elements with unarmoured cabins. While it happens, the Coast Guard is assuming some ships too powerful and some roles (minesweeping and landing) that would be more proper of the Russian Navy, and the Navy has some small ships (Gun Boats) that would be perfectly in the Coast Guard.
Surely the recent new strategy for the Russian Navy of 2015 marks the point where this process of early decommissions to reduce the size of the fleet has been finished. The next logical step would be to stop decommissions keeping stable the total number of ships of the fleet, but increasing the reserve of ships until its saturation while decreasing still the number of active ships. New decommissions only would come for ships lost, damaged or for ships that come to the end of its cycle of life (old to very old). The early decommision of warships is a bad business only logical for a fast reduction of the fleet, that surely will not continue.
in the refered to the production of new ships, Russia is increasing a little its production of new ships, to cover new needs and to open new lines of production of modern ships of every type. Since new decommissions will be very rare until 2023 approximately, and about 3 by year in 2023-2030, the production of ships will remain low still despite to be higher than in the previous period.
It means that in the following 8-10 years surely the focus will be more in the opening of new lines of production of modern ships of every type and the replacement of foreign components, than in the production of new ships. To complete the new projects of destroyers and aircraft carriers and its production lines will be important in the next decade.
Still, one of the main problems of the Russian Navy that need to be solved by organizational changes, is that with a single budget need to afford the equipment of too many internal branches of very different nature, with the result of having less modern equipment than other similar forces. As example, the Russian Naval Aviation having older equipment than the Russian Aerospace Forces, the Russian Naval Infantry having older equipment than the Russian Army or the Russian Airborne Troops, or the Coastal Artillery having different calibers and having lower standards on the safety of the crew by the use of tractor elements with unarmoured cabins. While it happens, the Coast Guard is assuming some ships too powerful and some roles (minesweeping and landing) that would be more proper of the Russian Navy, and the Navy has some small ships (Gun Boats) that would be perfectly in the Coast Guard.
Last edited by eehnie on Sun Jun 05, 2016 4:08 pm; edited 1 time in total
PapaDragon- Posts : 13264
Points : 13306
Join date : 2015-04-26
Location : Fort Evil, Serbia
I still think that best course of action would be to develop horizontal UKSK launchers for these older corvettes, destroyers and cruisers.
It would be massive bang for buck and it would standardise naval arsenal even further. I know Udalois will be getting additional weapons in the form of Uran launchers but they can easily go further than that.
Developing horizontal UKSK launcher can't be that complicated. It should be pretty simple in fact.
eehnie- Posts : 2425
Points : 2428
Join date : 2015-05-13
In peace time, it is good to reach a continuity in the process of design and development of new warfare, and in the process of production of new warfare. The nature of every gouvernments budget is constant and it makes the military budget to be also so constant. It is good for every country to find a right and sustainable size for its armed forces and to keep a constant rythm in the design and development, and also in the procurement and production of new warfare.
In the case of the Russian Navy, the current fleet has around 300 warships. To keep this number constant in the long term Russia would need to build around 60 ships by decade for a total replacement of the fleet in 5 decades.
The 60 warships by decade would include:
- Aircraft Carriers
- Cruisers
- Destroyers
- Frigates
- Corvettes
- Minesweepers
- Amphibious ships for landing.
- Boats (Missile, ASW and Artillery)
- Submarines (Nuclear and Conventional)
Would not include:
- Coast Guard (including Gun Boats)
- Auxiliary ships
- Midget Submarines
Do you think to build 60 warships by decade is an affordable rythm for the Russian military budget? It is realistic?
In other words, for peace time, can Russia afford to keep in its Navy in the long term a fleet of 300 warships (including active and reserve)?
I tend to think that it can be possible for Russia to keep this rythm in the long term.
In the case of the Russian Navy, the current fleet has around 300 warships. To keep this number constant in the long term Russia would need to build around 60 ships by decade for a total replacement of the fleet in 5 decades.
The 60 warships by decade would include:
- Aircraft Carriers
- Cruisers
- Destroyers
- Frigates
- Corvettes
- Minesweepers
- Amphibious ships for landing.
- Boats (Missile, ASW and Artillery)
- Submarines (Nuclear and Conventional)
Would not include:
- Coast Guard (including Gun Boats)
- Auxiliary ships
- Midget Submarines
Do you think to build 60 warships by decade is an affordable rythm for the Russian military budget? It is realistic?
In other words, for peace time, can Russia afford to keep in its Navy in the long term a fleet of 300 warships (including active and reserve)?
I tend to think that it can be possible for Russia to keep this rythm in the long term.
zg18- Posts : 888
Points : 958
Join date : 2013-09-26
Location : Zagreb , Croatia
OK this is very interesting
https://twitter.com/seawaves_mag/status/740231762379452424
Rubin Design Bureau's news Harpsichord-2P-PM Autonomous Underwater Vehicle (AUV)
https://twitter.com/seawaves_mag/status/740231762379452424
artjomh- Posts : 150
Points : 184
Join date : 2015-07-17
Name's wrong.
Klavesin-2R-PM
Pic is from Igor Vilnit's (Rubin's boss) article in VPK from the other day.
Klavesin-2R-PM
Pic is from Igor Vilnit's (Rubin's boss) article in VPK from the other day.
Viktor- Posts : 5796
Points : 6429
Join date : 2009-08-25
Age : 43
Location : Croatia
artjomh wrote:Name's wrong.
Klavesin-2R-PM
Pic is from Igor Vilnit's (Rubin's boss) article in VPK from the other day.
Thanks
"Harpsichord-2" - the younger brother of nuclear "status 6"
TheArmenian- Posts : 1880
Points : 2025
Join date : 2011-09-14
Artist sketch of the 5th generation submarine "Khaski".
TheArmenian- Posts : 1880
Points : 2025
Join date : 2011-09-14
Onyx and Zircon (artist)
JohninMK- Posts : 14642
Points : 14777
Join date : 2015-06-16
Location : England
Looks really smart, no rust in sight. Anyone else think Yamal has had a coat of paint/maintenance whilst in port?
Landing ship Yamal making her 4 deployment in 2016. Her last passage through Turkish Straits was in February. Photo: Kerim Bozkurt.
Landing ship Yamal making her 4 deployment in 2016. Her last passage through Turkish Straits was in February. Photo: Kerim Bozkurt.
GarryB- Posts : 38916
Points : 39412
Join date : 2010-03-30
Location : New Zealand
That article talking about a new model TOR for the navy is sad.
What it basically means is that any ship given an upgrade and overhaul to keep it in service for another decade or two that has either OSA or TOR will not have those systems replaced with something more modern.
They wont get Redut or Morfei... they will get upgraded TORs and likely upgraded RIF-Ms etc...
I would assume as the Granit and Vulkan are no longer in production that they will get UKSK and Onyx or Zircon.
What it basically means is that any ship given an upgrade and overhaul to keep it in service for another decade or two that has either OSA or TOR will not have those systems replaced with something more modern.
They wont get Redut or Morfei... they will get upgraded TORs and likely upgraded RIF-Ms etc...
I would assume as the Granit and Vulkan are no longer in production that they will get UKSK and Onyx or Zircon.
Guest- Guest
JohninMK wrote:Looks really smart, no rust in sight. Anyone else think Yamal has had a coat of paint/maintenance whilst in port?
Landing ship Yamal making her 4 deployment in 2016. Her last passage through Turkish Straits was in February. Photo: Kerim Bozkurt.
It was repainted, yes.
KiloGolf- Posts : 2481
Points : 2461
Join date : 2015-09-01
Location : Macedonia, Hellas
what's the status of the ex-Ukrainian LST that Russia took over? Did they induct them into BS fleet?
Guest- Guest
KiloGolf wrote:what's the status of the ex-Ukrainian LST that Russia took over? Did they induct them into BS fleet?
From what i have read somewhere all "captured" vessels are in docks, still in Russian hands, but not used or anything. Probably waiting for some kind of agreement with Ukraine.
JohninMK- Posts : 14642
Points : 14777
Join date : 2015-06-16
Location : England
The Kilo Class Stary Oskol, with its escort Altay, on her way through the English Channel on her way from Severmorsk to the Black Sea. Its the Daily Mail so the evil Russians are threatening poor little UK again 
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3633055/Putin-s-sailors-stand-bridge-attack-submarine-wave-Britain.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3633055/Putin-s-sailors-stand-bridge-attack-submarine-wave-Britain.html
Last edited by JohninMK on Thu Jun 09, 2016 9:32 pm; edited 1 time in total (Reason for editing : Duplicated picture removed.)
Dima- Posts : 1222
Points : 1233
Join date : 2012-03-22
Good stuff there you mentioned.GarryB wrote:Actually we have seen their new modular universal weapon launchers for cruise missiles and SAMs, but it would be interesting if they developed modular systems for existing types and smaller vessels .
For instance a vertical launch system for Uran that could use the new upgraded 240km range models of the missile plus some alternative designs.
I remember a while back they showed a model of a reduced size Uran for helos that was lighter and smaller and had a shorter range for smaller patrol craft and helos and light aircraft to use.
equally an IIR or optically guided model for land attack uses would be interesting as well.
Something that doesn't require three deck levels of vertical space to install...
perhaps unify it with the Shtil SAM or perhaps an upgraded TOR so it can take all sorts of missile types that as smaller draft and can cover the upper deck space of an existing vessel with minor modifications.
I had thought variants but never did the VL version of Kh-35 came to mind coz the Klub was already there.
What I had wanted most was an encapsuled Kh-35 that can be launched from torpedo tubes. Kh-35 still beats the likes of Exocet-39/40 in range and will only cost a fraction of these missiles. if Russia can provide an alternative with the Kh-35, they will comfortably eat into the European arms dealers naval strike missile market (non-European markets that use French/German subs) with proper promotion.
The VL version of KH-35 looks good but not with a dedicated UKSK kind of launcher (10+m overall length), which will need extra deck penetration. What we need to have is a silo (retaining the current length of container/slightly extra length) that can be installed/inserted vertically and which takes up only one deck level under the main deck.
|
|
|