Russian Navy: Status & News #3

AlfaT8 wrote:I've been wondering for a while now, but why hasn't Russia deployed any Piranya-750 midget subs, they seem very useful for coastal defense especially in the BS and the Baltic, it looks like the 750B version might carry 4 Clubs/Kalibers, cheaper and faster to build than even conventional Kilo subs, and since there short range anyway you might as well make them completely Electric (Batt/AIP), no navy in there right mind would dare enter Russian brown waters with these things around.

And there's also the possibility of deploying these in rivers so you'll also have long range Kalibers, ready to fire there.

Isos wrote:

AlfaT8 wrote:I've been wondering for a while now, but why hasn't Russia deployed any Piranya-750 midget subs, they seem very useful for coastal defense especially in the BS and the Baltic, it looks like the 750B version might carry 4 Clubs/Kalibers, cheaper and faster to build than even conventional Kilo subs, and since there short range anyway you might as well make them completely Electric (Batt/AIP), no navy in there right mind would dare enter Russian brown waters with these things around.

And there's also the possibility of deploying these in rivers so you'll also have long range Kalibers, ready to fire there.

Having a few of them would be nice but they jut can't replace Kilos. They can be dangerous but once they lunched their weapons they are defenceless. A kilo can rearm its tubes and lunch another Attack. Torpedos doesn't have 100% probability of kill specially now that ships are armed with active anti torpedo torpedos.


However for deep reco and point defence they can be usefull.

Why would you send a sub in a river , you can lunch Kalibr from a truck: much much cheaper.

GarryB wrote:

Because of the INF treaty.

They developed a model that can be launched from a shipping container... presumably such weapons can be launched from any shipping container anywhere... whether it is on a ship or the train yard or a train or truck.

It would not take much adaptation to allow them to be released from the back of a cargo aircraft in mid flight like air dropped cargo... a new Il-476 could carry 60 tons of missiles in launch containers... so lets say 20 missiles... assuming the shipping crates are not used and a small sleeve container for the missiles is used... an An-124 could therefore carry about 70 odd missiles and drop them out the back of the aircraft at say 10,000m... a parachute deploys and the missile falls out the bottom... deploys its wings and pulls up 90 degrees and starts its flight to its target...

Small subs are useful for certain things but for most tasks larger vessels are more useful for a much wider range of tasks... so it makes more sense to build a couple of small vessels and rather more bigger vessels.

You sure they can't reload, i haven't been able to find a proper diagram.
That said, i am more interested in using them as cruise missile launchers, with a range of 2500 to 4000km, also i am not proposing these as replacement for the Kilos.
Uhm, i only know of the Paket anti-torpedo system, i don't recall there being any western counterpart, much less such a systems being actively deployed?

Point defense?? ...no, more Kaliber luanchers, harder to detect, target and well dispersed.

Because of the INF treaty.

Isos wrote:

You sure they can't reload, i haven't been able to find a proper diagram.
That said, i am more interested in using them as cruise missile launchers, with a range of 2500 to 4000km, also i am not proposing these as replacement for the Kilos.
Uhm, i only know of the Paket anti-torpedo system, i don't recall there being any western counterpart, much less such a systems being actively deployed?

Point defense?? ...no, more Kaliber luanchers, harder to detect, target and well dispersed.

Because of the INF treaty.

They have like 4 or 6 torpedos fitted in their lunch tubes which for most project are 400 mm tubes and if it's a bigger one they carry less misiles. They doesn't have space for more munitions, if we talk about true midget subs. So you can't reload them. And reloading a midget sub at sea is not an easy task.

Kilo and future VLS equiped Kalina can lunch Kalibr in great quantity.

Yes there is Paket but I've also read that new small kalibr torpedo from the west can target torpedos too. It's not their main role however.

Kalibr are like 2000+ km range so who cares if your lunch plateform is hard to detect. The design of the missile takes in consideration of survavibility of the lunch plateform and the ability of luching them behind your own line of defences. You can put the same amount of missile in container on 1 big merchand vessel as in 20 midget subs. The disperstion is not really needed as they can be program to follow a trajectory programmed in their computer.

Having a plateform for lunching like just 4 Kalibr is not a cheap strategy. Plus the range and the endurence of midget subs are so bad that even a costal Kalibr system can do their job.

INF treaty is for peace time. Container for Kalibr can be transfered from a ship to a truck in matter of minutes. Russia is fearing that USA does the same with their Mk-41 VLS used for the Euro ABM. They are saying "we respect INF treaty we put just anti air missiles in them" but actully they can replace them with 2000+ km range tomahwak missiles in matter of minutes.

GarryB wrote:

Yes, yes, i am aware of the container option, but at the end of the day they're still limited to max 500km range and airdropping them from point A to point B will also take time.

No.

A single missile container that can be released from a cargo aircraft in flight would be an airlaunched weapon and therefore not subject to the INF treaty which limits ground launched weapons.

Put it on the back of a small river boat with an angle launch tube and rocket booster and again it is not land launched and therefore also not subject to the INF treaty so it can have a range of anything you like... 5,000km or more if you want...

GarryB wrote:

Ok, let's go with that then since Midget subs are normally shoot and scoot.

The hell, i was aware of the Kalina/Lada, but i wasn't aware Kilo's could use Kalibers from submerged positions, are these the 877s or the new 636.3??
If it's the latter, then you only have 6 of them each carrying 10 Kaliber, it's good, but i prefer having more assets in the water.

Why waste time putting cruise missiles in SSKs... they have their own job to do... not waste their time attacking land targets. A single corvette can have 8 missiles ready to fire and are cheaper and easier to make than subs and can be used for other roles as well.

GarryB wrote:

The issue with containers is that they're not dedicated sea based assets so they would still be considered ground based regardless, ergo have a max 500km range (supposedly), also don't expect NATO to hold back just because there on civilian vessels.
Dispersion is needed if you want to maximize to survival of your offensive assets, make it as difficult as possible for your opponent to dislodge your assets.

There would be millions of shipping crates in train and ship depots in Russia... when the INF treaty is torn up over US violations with tomahawk missile tubes in eastern europe then 5,000km range missiles can be used.

Note the INF treaty covers missiles with ranges of 500km to 5,500km, so a 6,000km range cruise missile is perfectly legal...

GarryB wrote:

I honestly wonder about that, since it's not a dedicated sea based platform, but the INF doesn't say it needs to be a dedicated sea based, at least from what i can make out from that blob of text.

The INF treaty defines banned systems as ballistic or cruise missiles launched from ground based launchers... it does not include Mk-41 vertical launch systems the US Navy uses when they are mounted on ships, but when mounted on a land base in eastern europe such launchers are not only able to launch SAMs but Tomahawk cruise missiles so they represent a violation of the INF treaty.

I don't see the US dismantling those launchers meaning Russia would be free to build land based or truck based UKSK launchers where they want on the land too... making the INF treaty not worth the paper it is printed on.

GarryB wrote:

Why not, considering Russia's lack of major surface vessels it makes sense to put cruise missiles in everything possible (containers for example).

Because most of their new vessels will carry plenty of launch tubes... why waste space on conventional subs... of course UKSK tubes in a conventional sub are useful because they can carry anti ship and anti sub missiles as well as land attack cruise missiles.

They could build a cruise missile carrier boat that is just hundreds of UKSK tubes for land attack roles in conventional conflicts. In other types of conflict they could have perhaps S-500s fitted in the large tubes of the UKSK launchers, and also perhaps develop UAVS that can be launched from such tubes...

GarryB wrote:

And there lies the question, is a corvette really cheaper then a midget sub, if so than there's still the aspect of a midget sub being much more difficult to search&destroy.

A sub is a sneak attack weapon... a corvette is a multi purpose vessel with a much wider range of overt uses. They are different enough for both to be useful.

GarryB wrote:

True, which is good, although i wonder how many container have been procured?
If that happens than i have nothing to worry about, no sane adversary would dare launch an attack, unless they went full retard.
No doubt, hell if that happens it may even force the western dogs to sign a new treaty.

The INF treaty is useful in that it limits US weapons in europe and eliminates an entire class of weapon from the ground in europe.

When it was signed the SS-20 was a potent powerful weapon that was very destabilising... weapons in Turkey also meant there might be 2-5 minutes between launch and a direct attack on Moscow... that is a real hair trigger... 2 minutes to decide if it is a mistake or WWIII... no real time to talk to anyone... just destroy the world or not.

Today however the radar coverage of Russia and europe is much much better and the air defence capabilities are also much better so most missiles fired could be intercepted...

It remains a limit on US missiles in europe so Russia does not withdraw, but when tomahawk launch tubes are being built as part of an ABM system in europe then they will have to say enough if enough and withdraw... which would allow development of the IRBM range of weapons which are cheaper and very effective in theatre conflicts like europe, the ME and Asia.

Of course in the near future there will be hypersonic cruise missiles on the table and you can bet they wont have super long range, but will have a range greater than 500km... they will be like Ballistic missiles in speed, but with the manouver capability of an aircraft they will be much harder to intercept than a BM.. . I suspect they will become the new IRBMs and kill the INF treaty for good.

It can close out of the Danish Straits to the Baltic sea and covers all possible targets on the territory of Poland

Moscow. 21 Nov. INTERFAX.RU - Group of forces in the Kaliningrad special district is reinforced with a division of coastal missile complex "Bastion", said on Monday "Interfax" a source familiar with the situation.

He said that the division became part of the missile join the Baltic fleet.

19 November, the press service of the Baltic fleet reported that the missile join the Navy "training infrastructure and planned upgrading to a new shore and operational-tactical missile complexes".

The press service did not elaborate on what kind of complexes is upgrading.

General Director Kaluga instrument-making plant "Typhoon" Andrei Petrakov said earlier that in September transferred to the Baltic fleet coastal missile complex "Ball".

"Fire and forget"
Mobile coastal missile complex "Bastion" with a unified supersonic antiship homing missile "Onyx" designed and produced in machine-building NPO (Reutov, Moscow oblast, included in the Corporation "Tactical missiles").

The complex "Bastion" is designed to protect the coast stretching over 600 km and defeat surface ships of various classes and types, operating in the composition of the airborne compounds, convoys, ship and aircraft carrier battle groups and single ships and land-based Radiocontrast targets in conditions of intensive fire and electronic countermeasures.

Ammunition one set can include up to 36 missiles. Rocket has over-the-horizon firing range. It implemented the principle of "fire and forget".

Closed the coast
As reported on 15 November, Russian defense Minister army General Sergei Shoigu, in connection with the use of "Onyx" on ground targets terrorists in Syria, "to put coastal complexes "Bastion", which effectively closed the entire coast, and today we have these complexes are able to hit both marine and ground targets at a distance of 350 km of the sea and about 450 km of the land."

According to military experts, such a range when deploying a "Bastion" in the Kaliningrad region and its ability to operate against ground targets allows this complex, if necessary, to close the exit from the Danish Straits to the Baltic sea for ships of the potential enemy and "close" all possible targets on the territory of Poland.

As previously reported by Shoigu, in 2016, "the Navy will receive five more coastal missile complexes".

"In the future, the fleets will to do four sets every year," he said. According to him, by 2021 Russia will be able to completely retool coastal missile units with modern weapons.

Earlier it was reported that the Baltic from the black sea fleet sent two small missile ship project 21631 "Green Vale" and "Serpukhov". They are carriers of cruise missiles"Caliber-NK".

franco wrote:Tenders issued for the dismantling of 2 Kilo class submarines and 2 Sovremenny Class destroyers.  

franco wrote:2 Sovremenny Class destroyers.  

KiloGolf wrote:

franco wrote:2 Sovremenny Class destroyers.  

Don't know about the Kilos, Russians better keep as many as they can. But the Sovs have been notorious early-on with their boilers. Late Russian and PLAN variants maybe no so much. But these are potentially old, unmodified Soviet relics.

franco wrote:

eehnie wrote:

franco wrote:Tenders issued for the dismantling of 2 Kilo class submarines and 2 Sovremenny Class destroyers.  

Can you elaborate a little more?

Two of each to be scrapped. Pretty sure there is no value in keeping them around.

franco wrote:Tenders issued for the dismantling of 2 Kilo class submarines and 2 Sovremenny Class destroyers.  

franco wrote:

eehnie wrote:

franco wrote:

eehnie wrote:

franco wrote:Tenders issued for the dismantling of 2 Kilo class submarines and 2 Sovremenny Class destroyers.  

Can you elaborate a little more?

Two of each to be scrapped. Pretty sure there is no value in keeping them around.

Then I understand are likely units decommissioned in recent years. I understand it mean not new decommissions.

I commented about the reports of sales and auctions of material from scrapping and of spare parts in the refered to the land and air warfare. In the refered to sea warfare, it has been an important activity. And in this case the reports are even better because they talk about the exact ship scrapped. The sales and auctions of scrap of ships in 2016 come mostly from auxiliary ships decommissioned between 2009 and 2014. According to the reports the scrapping queue seems not very long.

Surely these 4 have been decommissioned around the same time.

Here is a further story about the subs.
http://bmpd.livejournal.com/2286883.html