Russian Navy: Status & News #2

Svyatoslavich wrote:

kvs wrote:I guess the analogues in military aviation are the B-52 and Tu-95.    We are talking about 1950s aircraft in operation over 60 years
later and no hurry to retire them.   For some reason people expect navy ships to be like consumer automobiles with a 10 year
lifespan.  

Not the case of the Tu-95MS and Tu-142M. The basic design is from the 50's, but the aircraft went through design updates in the 70's, including structural changes, and the production ran up to the early 90's, so the oldest Tu-95 now in service must be 30 yeras old maximum. B-52s, on the other hand, were produced only till 1963 or 64, so all planes are more than 50 years old.

As has been pointed out already, the same upgrades have been applied to Russian navy ships. People should stop bitching so hard at Russia
for not doing it "right" when they clearly have no clue what is "right".

Benya wrote:

Well, I would like to see Gorshkov/Grigorovich class frigates everywhere too, but they would replace some existing ship classes, like Udaloy-class destroyers (Udaloys are among my personal favorite ships), and they are still a capapble ship class, although I have never seen reports about its nearing phasing out, so I suppose that they would remain in service until the early 2020s, though their decommission will be inevitable at some point, it wouldn't be happening in the near future.

Speaking about Admiral Gorshkov- and Admiral Grigorovich- classes, they are coming slow but sure. We know that they have suffered from engine shortages (formerly engines were supplied by Ukraine, but due to the ongoing crisis, further supplied were discontinued), and AFAIK, domestic supplier NPO Saturn will only be able to supply new engines from 2017-2018.

"only from 2017-2018". Yeah, total failure on the part of Russia.

I don't have much information on subs, but I read that Lada-class submarines are a bit of a failure, since the last two of them were laid down with a 10 years lag between them, and both of them is said to enter service no later than 2019. That is insane!

Oh God, will you give it a rest. Anyone who thinks that a hull laid down in the 1990s would be completed on time is out to lunch. It is a miracle anything
was built given the collapse of Russia's economy and government finances. I can't stand this sort of historical revisionism where Yeltsin's nightmare is
laundered into some sort of golden era of freedom and the failure to complete projects launched during the 1990s is laid at Putin's feet.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lada-class_submarine

The above is a rare useful Wikipedia link.

B-585 : laid down December, 1997, commissioned May, 2010 (note that commissioning comes a year or more later than completion).

On the basis of the performance of the B-585, a full redesign was instituted in 2012.

However, in November 2011 the Russian Navy decided that this class of submarines would not be accepted into service, as the lead boat had fallen far short of requirements during tests.[3] The lead boat was retained as a test vessel to experiment with various systems. The construction of the remaining boats of the class was frozen.

On 27 July 2012, the Russian Navy commander-in-chief announced the resumption of the construction of the St. Petersburg-class submarines, having undergone extensive design changes.[4] In 2013 and 2015, two further boats were re-laid and commissioning is expected in 2017 and 2018.

The B-586 was initially laid down in 2005 but restarted in 2013 with new plans.

The B-587 was laid down in March, 2015 and is expected to be commissioned in 2019.

I see a 4 year cycle from start of construction to commissioning. Yeah, another epic Russian failure.

Press release from Severnaya Werf

Project 22350 Admiral Gorshkov class frigates
2nd unit, Admiral Kasatonov will start trials late in 2016
3rd unit, Admiral Golovko will be launched in 2017

Project 20385 Gremyashy class corvettes
1st unit, Gremyashy will be commissioned in 2018
2nd unit, Provorny will be commissioned in 2019

Project 20380 Steregushy class corvettes
5th unit, Rezky will be commissioned in 2018
6th unit, Strogy will be commissioned in 2018

Project 18280 Yuri Ivanov class communication/command ships
2nd unit will be launched in 2016 and commissioned end 2017

Project 23120 Elbrus logistic support ships
1st unit, Elbrus will be commissioned in 2016
2nd unit, Vsevolod Bobrov will be launched in 2016


In other news

Corvette Sovershenny (project 20380) is completed in the Far East shipyard.
She is now undergoing demagnetization (Degaussing).

I guess the analogues in military aviation are the B-52 and Tu-95. We are talking about 1950s aircraft in operation over 60 years
later and no hurry to retire them. For some reason people expect navy ships to be like consumer automobiles with a 10 year lifespan.

Actually the Tu-95 is not really a 1950s aircraft.

It is mistaken for a WWII aircraft with its propellers but in actual fact it is a jet... or more accurately a turboprop aircraft... in fact it is currently the worlds fastest propeller driven aircraft and one of the few prop driven aircraft that actually benefit from a swept wing design.

Aerodynamically it was redesigned in the 1970s to improve its flight performance and got the designation Tu-142M.

All in service Bears (bombers and ASW aircraft) are less than 40 years old, unlike the US B-52s... many of which are older than the parents of their current pilots.

I don't have much information on subs, but I read that Lada-class submarines are a bit of a failure, since the last two of them were laid down with a 10 years lag between them, and both of them is said to enter service no later than 2019. That is insane!

Not really. The Lada class subs were very ambitious designs that were intended to bring the level of performance of a nuclear powered attack sub (ie SSN) to the coastal conventionally powered sub... ie an SSK with the sensor capability and weapon variety and capacity of a SSN.

It was a very ambitious programme that came up short in the first model. The second two hulls are to be adapted to make changes necessary to make them effective but a brand new design has been developed to replace them all... this is not the first time this sort of thing has happened of course... the Mike class nuclear sub was super advanced in several ways and was actually lost. The Lada was tested and found some things didn't work as well as expected so fundamental changes were needed that would be too expensive to be applied to the already built model but could be adapted to the two hulls on the slipway. The original Lada class will be kept for testing new systems, so operational boats wont need to be withdrawn from service to do the same.

I see a 4 year cycle from start of construction to commissioning. Yeah, another epic Russian failure.

AFAIK the two remaining Lada class subs will be used to test the AIP system and new batteries they have developed... you can use computer models and scale models all you like but to test properly you need full scale models to test... which is what the three Lada vessels are... the results will be applied to the kalina design no doubt.

The article was mostly bollocks no doubt & I think the Russian navy is at least trying to do the right stuff but you guys are not in reality when you say the existing fleet is not that old.

While a lot of the current Russian fleet entered service in the late '80s/early '90s a bunch of those had long hiatus, there are still plenty from the '70s & even some from the '60s.
It's one thing to keep old stuff in service when its been kept well maintained & given repeated upgrades through time but most of the former Soviet fleet got tied up for ~20yrs barely maintained & not kept upgraded.

Soviet period ships are pretty amazing & the potential for them if upgraded with modern systems is huge but its been noted that most are in such bad shape they need to be stripped to bare hull & rebuilt which costs basically the same in $$$ & time as building a new ship.
Even doing that huge upgrade you're left with an old hull & a bunch of old systems that you didn't replace.

A bunch of what is nominally in service is not practically able to go to sea & even those that go to sea are notorious for being accompanied by tugs, these ships desperately need replacing/upgrading.

hoom wrote:
A bunch of what is nominally in service is not practically able to go to sea & even those that go to sea are notorious for being accompanied by tugs, these ships desperately need replacing/upgrading.

If ship is accompanied by tugs, that does not mean the ship is in bad conditions. That's typical western propaganda, which try to create a stereotype about "obsolete" and "unreliable" Russian navy, which is always follow by tugs. Sometimes, I got a feeling that 90% of Russian navy are tugs, which are only one in good conditions.
Tugs are part of every navy in the world and they are there because they are necessary in the case of break down. Also, crew of tugs needs practice too on long journeys.

There is a list of active ships and submarines in https://img-fotki.yandex.ru/get/100269/227305704.22/0_1572ee_1f565e89_orig.

I can only say that Russian navy is still respective force, with 60+ submarines of which 37 are in battle ready conditions, while rests are on modernization or repairs. That means more than 50% of submarines are active.
we have 22(39 total) active nuclear submarines and 15(20 total) active diesel submarines.  

We don't have a data for US navy or other NATO members states. But quiet often there was reports about problems in NATO navies too, for example there were situation with just one multipurpose submarine on active in UK navy.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3065973/Britain-s-Royal-Navy-just-one-nuclear-powered-submarine-active-patrol-five-service-repaired.html

Ned86 wrote:

hoom wrote:
A bunch of what is nominally in service is not practically able to go to sea & even those that go to sea are notorious for being accompanied by tugs, these ships desperately need replacing/upgrading.

If ship is accompanied by tugs, that does not mean the ship is in bad conditions. That's typical western propaganda, which try to create a stereotype about "obsolete" and "unreliable" Russian navy, which is always follow by tugs. Sometimes, I got a feeling that 90% of Russian navy are tugs, which are only one in good conditions.
Tugs are part of every navy in the world and they are there because they are necessary in the case of break down. Also, crew of tugs needs practice too on long journeys.

There is a list of active ships and submarines in https://img-fotki.yandex.ru/get/100269/227305704.22/0_1572ee_1f565e89_orig.

I can only say that Russian navy is still respective force, with 60+ submarines of which 37 are in battle ready conditions, while rests are on modernization or repairs. That means more than 50% of submarines are active.
we have 22(39 total) active nuclear submarines and 15(20 total) active diesel submarines.  

We don't have a data for US navy or other NATO members states. But quiet often there was reports about problems in NATO navies too, for example there were situation with just one multipurpose submarine on active in UK navy.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3065973/Britain-s-Royal-Navy-just-one-nuclear-powered-submarine-active-patrol-five-service-repaired.html

It is clear that there is an information war by NATO against Russia. Serious issues in NATO navies are downplayed and trivial issues in Russia's navy are blown
up into massive problems. All propaganda requires ignorance of the information consumer. That ignorance is rampant.

https://news.usni.org/2016/08/30/lcs-uss-coronado-suffers-engineering-casualty-returning-pearl-harbor?utm_source=USNI+News&utm_campaign=c5dfae19a0-USNI_NEWS_DAILY&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_0dd4a1450b-c5dfae19a0-230439881&mc_cid=c5dfae19a0&mc_eid=b753685840

Looks like the new US littoral combat ships have serious design and build quality issues. I'll take a Russian "rust bucket" that actually works over this US
crap any day.

Like in every branch of the Russian Armed Forces, there is also a part of the security forces, that use the same type of equipment.

In this case, while the branch of the Russian Armed Forces that is working with sea warfare is the Russian Navy, and the most important branch of the security forces that use also sea based platforms as equipment is the Coast Guard of the Border Service of the Federal Security Service of Russia (FSB).

I tend to think that the Armed Forces must have exclusive use of some types of equipment that are too strong for its use by the Security forces. We can try to see where are the limits, in this case between the warfare used by the Russian Navy and the equipment used by the Coast Guard.

In my opinion, this would be the warfare that should be of use exclusive of the Russian Navy:

- Ships and submarines that fire Weapons of Mass Destruction (nuclear,...).
- Ships and submarines that fire surface-air missiles that can not be fired by portable-man portable launchers.
- Ships and submarines that fire surface-surface missiles that can not be fired by portable-man portable launchers.
- Ships and submarines that fire antisubmarine missiles that can not be fired by portable-man portable launchers.
- Ships and submarines that fire artillery ammunition (including anti-armour) that can not be fired by portable-man portable launchers (today the limit is in the 120mm caliber), except anti-submarine artillery.
- Ships that become platforms for combat aircrafts or helicopters (armed with equivalent to the cited weapons).
- Ships for the role of minesweeping.
- Ships for the role of landing.

The weapons where would not be bad if the Coast Guard can access in low amounts:
- Torpedoes.
- Anti-submarine mortars (with ammunition that frees torpedoes or depth charges).

Other big caliber warfare that would not be bad if there are shared by both the Russian Navy and the Russian Coast Guard:
- Decoy systems.
- Guided sea mines (self guided).

In fact this fits very well with the current situation. Only in a few cases the ships of the Russian Coast Guard would exceed this armament level. And at same time, the ships of the Russian Navy that reach not this livel are basically Auxiliary Ships.

Ships of the Russian Coast Guard that have armament or roles of the level of the Russian Navy:
- 3 Project 11351 Krivak class ships.
- 1 Project 1265 Sonya class minesweeper. The Russian navy has many of them.
- 5 Project 1330 --- class minesweepers.
- 2 Project 1176 Ondatra class landing ships. The Russian Navy has many of them.
- 3 Project T-4 T-4 class landing ships.

Surely it would be interesting the transference of these ships from the Russian Coast Guard to the Russian Navy.

hoom wrote:The article was mostly bollocks no doubt & I think the Russian navy is at least trying to do the right stuff but you guys are not in reality when you say the existing fleet is not that old.

While a lot of the current Russian fleet entered service in the late '80s/early '90s a bunch of those had long hiatus, there are still plenty from the '70s & even some from the '60s.
It's one thing to keep old stuff in service when its been kept well maintained & given repeated upgrades through time but most of the former Soviet fleet got tied up for ~20yrs barely maintained & not kept upgraded.

Soviet period ships are pretty amazing & the potential for them if upgraded with modern systems is huge but its been noted that most are in such bad shape they need to be stripped to bare hull & rebuilt which costs basically the same in $$$ & time as building a new ship.
Even doing that huge upgrade you're left with an old hull & a bunch of old systems that you didn't replace.

A bunch of what is nominally in service is not practically able to go to sea & even those that go to sea are notorious for being accompanied by tugs, these ships desperately need replacing/upgrading.

The real data is approximately this:

1960s: 4 ships and submarines, 1.29%
1970s: 25 ships and submarines. 8.12% including 3 captured to Ukraine.
1980s: 118 ships and submarines. 38.31% including 2 captured to Ukraine.

Today only 20 ships active or in the reserve have 40 years old 6.49%, and only 1 reached 50 years old just some days ago.

This is the reality. This is not an old fleet. Far from true. The 90%+ of the fleet is under 36 years old.

Recently decommissioned ships:

- B-380 Project 641B submarine. Commissioned 1982. Decommissioned 2016.
- B-402 Project 877 submarine. Commissioned 1984. Decommissioned 2016.
- R-47 Project 12411 missile boat. Commissioned 1987. Decommissioned 2016.

To say that these ships have been retired because of lack of maintenance and updates in the 1990s is not right. These ships were between 3 and 8 years old in 1990 to need very much maintenance and updates. This kind of narrative is not right.

These are early decommissions of a fleet in reduction mode. Some ships that are planned to be retired as excedents of the fleet will not have maintenance like others but this is logical. If something, it is first the decission of early decommission, and later, the lack of maintenance of the ships planned to be retired.

1960s: 4 ships and submarines, 1.29%
1970s: 25 ships and submarines. 8.12% including 3 captured to Ukraine.
1980s: 118 ships and submarines. 38.31% including 2 captured to Ukraine.

I don't think this disproves the point at all.

No, it kept its original shape since 1952 until the present day. Any changes were almost cosmetic in nature (http://fas.org/nuke/guide/russia/bomber/tu-95.htm).

Hahahaha.. FAS?

So you believe the Tu-95 is based on the B-29 bomber?

The design of the Bear was totally upgraded in the 1970s with a new wing to improve flight performance. New build Tu-95s got the new wing as well.

hoom wrote:

1960s: 4 ships and submarines, 1.29%
1970s: 25 ships and submarines. 8.12% including 3 captured to Ukraine.
1980s: 118 ships and submarines. 38.31% including 2 captured to Ukraine.

I don't think this disproves the point at all.

This is because you do not know how would be a well balanced and continuous process of production/replacement of ships.

In a continuous and well balanced process where the maximum age in the fleet is projected to be 50 years old, a 20% of the ships would be over 40 years old, and a 50% of the ships would be over 25 years old.
In a continuous and well balanced process where the maximum age in the fleet is projected to be 45 years old, a 11.11% of the ships would be over 40 years old, and a 44.44% of the ships would be over 25 years old.

The numbers agree not with your argument about an old fleet, and about a lack of maintenance and updating as cause of the early retirement of the ships (because the ships of the 80s were too young to require big maintenance and updating in the 90s. The reality is more the inverse, the ships projected to be retired early are having lower maintenance and updating (as it is logical).

Note that of the 11 US aircraft carriers currently commissioned:

1960s: 1 aircraft carrier, 9.09% (54 years old)
1970s: 2 aircraft carriers, 18.18%
1980s: 3 aircraft carriers, 27.27%

At this point 6 aircraft carriers reached 25 years old (54.55%), of them 2 aircraft carriers reached 40 years old (18.18%) and of them 1 aircraft carrier reached 50 (9.09%).

Obviously the US fleet of aircraft carriers is older than the Russian Navy.

Russian Navy had started to expanded from mid 80s (Kirov class cruisers, Typhoon class SSBN, projects for super-carriers) to US Navy level but USSR collapse halted that progress

Nice "sortie" of the Caspian fleet for the KAVKAZ-2016 exercises:

GarryB wrote:

I see a 4 year cycle from start of construction to commissioning. Yeah, another epic Russian failure.

AFAIK the two remaining Lada class subs will be used to test the AIP system and new batteries they have developed... you can use computer models and scale models all you like but to test properly you need full scale models to test... which is what the three Lada vessels are... the results will be applied to the kalina design no doubt.

lada class failed. even russians admited that. that much sensors need lot of power and manpower, you jsut cant copy from nuclear to conventional submarine and expect a smooth sailing ... they tested stirling AIP on submerged platforms - barges  you dont need to build expencive sub for that , lol
in the end they went for fuell cell but high powered variant they want 0,4 MW  ,while german versions have 0,2 MW.

GarryB wrote:

No, it kept its original shape since 1952 until the present day. Any changes were almost cosmetic in nature (http://fas.org/nuke/guide/russia/bomber/tu-95.htm).

Hahahaha.. FAS?

So you believe the Tu-95 is based on the B-29 bomber?

The design of the Bear was totally upgraded in the 1970s with a new wing to improve flight performance. New build Tu-95s got the new wing as well.

That is completely true. Tu-142/Tu-95MS are not only newly built (from the late 70's to the early 90's), but also very different versions and much improved when compared to early Tu-95 (A, RT, K). The Tu-95 design evolved much more, and in a much longer timeframe, than the B-52, which like I said stopped being produced in the early 60's. All B-52H now in service are 50+ aircraft.

-------

https://www.russiadefence.net/viewtopic.forum?t=6686