Russian Navy: Status & News #4

Lider or Kirov...all just seems like a wet dream for Russia today. Do people seriusly think that anything of this will be completed by 2025-2030? Okey the Admiral Nakhimov probably will be finshed by 2020 or so but after that....
It takes Russia years to finish a frigate...some of the larger corvettes has taken over 10 years to get ready. To think that a new large nuclear cruiser or a heavy aircraft carrier could be built by the late 2020 is wishing alot.

No what Russia should be doing is to concentrate on building a Green-water navy with smaller frigates and corvettes and keep on building ssbn:s for its strategic value. SSN:s could just be replaced by SSK:s with cruise missiles. How many Kilos and Ladas can u get for a price of one Yasen? Im not saying that all Akulas and Sierras should be scrapped right away, but to keep spending huge amount of money on 2-4 new nuclear submarines makes no sense.

walle83 wrote:Lider or Kirov...all just seems like a wet dream for Russia today. Do people seriusly think that anything of this will be completed by 2025-2030? Okey the Admiral Nakhimov probably will be finshed by 2020 or so but after that....
It takes Russia years to finish a frigate...some of the larger corvettes has taken over 10 years to get ready. To think that a new large nuclear cruiser or a heavy aircraft carrier could be built by the late 2020 is wishing alot.

No what Russia should be doing is to concentrate on building a Green-water navy with smaller frigates and corvettes and keep on building ssbn:s for its strategic value. SSN:s could just be replaced by SSK:s with cruise missiles. How many Kilos and Ladas can u get for a price of one Yasen? Im not saying that all Akulas and Sierras should be scrapped right away, but to keep spending huge amount of money on 2-4 new nuclear submarines makes no sense.

Everyone here knows Russia will not have a Lidar by 2025, that is pure insanity to think.

Russia will also not have any new carriers by 2030, we all know this and it has been said to death.

Russia is rolling out new air/ship/sub/ground-launched hypersonic weapons, with more to come...

Russia is not prioritizing the build of frigate-sized surface ships or larger....

Hmm...  add them together and what the fuck does it tell you?

Russian military strategists understand what the West refuses to accept - that the age of large expensive VULNERABLE surface units is over, and procurement funds are best spent on things other than the vanity projects that are soooo loved by the Navy brass.

C'mon people... its not such a huge leap to join the dots...

"Yaroslav Mudry" passed the English Channel

As reported by the British Ministry of Defense, on April 20, 2018, a detachment of ships of the Baltic Fleet of the Russian Navy, the recently completed the repair of the Yaroslav Mudry patrol ship of Project 11540 and the middle sea tanker Lena of Project 577, passed southward from the Channel, heading from the Baltic Sea to the Mediterranean. In the North Sea and the Canal, Russian ships were first accompanied by the Belgian frigate F 931 Louise-Marie (type M), followed by the British frigate F 83 St Albans (type 23). Russian ships entered the fighting service in the Mediterranean Sea from Baltiysk on April 15.



https://bmpd.livejournal.com/3168098.html

Liders won't be finished in 2020s for a simple reasons, as they're not a priority in the navy.

The most acute need right now are LTS ships, which are the oldest in the navy. So after finishing Ivan Gren class and Priboy class by 2026, Northern shipyard is planning to start with 12 Liders production. The first should be done in 2030 - perhaps a bit optimistic, but timelines today are NOT such problem as in the past. Russian shipbuilding industry has been through the worst and is launching 24.000 ton boats again. Don't forget that delays happen in the UK with their new carriers or in Germany with their destroyers too. And the most expensive projects Yasen and Borei will be finished by then, so more funds will be available for surface ships.

The old ships are also on clear schedule, with Kuznetsov modernisation planned to take place 2018-2021, Nakhimov 2017-2021 and Pyotr 2020-2023.

Russsian navy clearly is and will remain, not only a blue water, but also world's no. 2 navy, despite current difficulties. The Chinese are decades away from patrolling along US coast with their submarines and sending their aircraft carrier formations on a journey comparable to Murmansk - Tartus, let alone UK or France, which are dangerous only in combination with US ships.

Large surface ships aren't going away EVER. Missiles only fill one small area of a much bigger picture

A navy needs large hulls to patrol in the far ocean zone away from borders.

It needs aircraft carriers to conduct missions where it has no access to airbases.

It needs Helio Carriers to support different types of operations.

If you think "missiles" is the answer to everything, that just deluded thinking.

verkhoturye51 wrote:Liders won't be finished in 2020s for a simple reasons, as they're not a priority in the navy.

The most acute need right now are LTS ships, which are the oldest in the navy. So after finishing Ivan Gren class and Priboy class by 2026, Northern shipyard is planning to start with 12 Liders production. The first should be done in 2030 - perhaps a bit optimistic, but timelines today are NOT such problem as in the past. Russian shipbuilding industry has been through the worst and is launching 24.000 ton boats again. Don't forget that delays happen in the UK with their new carriers or in Germany with their destroyers too. And the most expensive projects Yasen and Borei will be finished by then, so more funds will be available for surface ships.

The old ships are also on clear schedule, with Kuznetsov modernisation planned to take place 2018-2021, Nakhimov 2017-2021 and Pyotr 2020-2023.

Russsian navy clearly is and will remain, not only a blue water, but also world's no. 2 navy, despite current difficulties. The Chinese are decades away from patrolling along US coast with their submarines and sending their aircraft carrier formations on a journey comparable to Murmansk - Tartus, let alone UK or France, which are dangerous only in combination with US ships.

Have u even looked at the  chines naval history the last 10-15 years? They are about to start sea trials with thier second aircraft carrier any day now, a year after it was launched, a third carrier is already under construction that will include catapults. Add to this heavy missile destroyers (cruisers really) being constructed in large numbers. They are still behind Russia and the US when it comes to SSNs but they are learning fast and constructs them twice as fast as Russia with the Type 093 soon being followed by the type 095. China will catch up with Russia in technology in the near future, it already have in several project and it has passed in cheer numbers years ago.

The most pessimistic projections suggest that Chinese navy will surpass Russian around year 2030. Right now China is still in the phase of modernization and not expansion. The number of vessels and submarines is the same since Cold war.

China is decades away from being technologically superior to Russia, which dominates certain areas even above US navy (supersonic cruise missiles, big part of submarine related tech). The recent leap forward is only due to Russian willingness to sell them some advanced tech after western sanctions. But the know how remains in Russian universities and is the only long term guarranty of tech advance.

Aircraft carriers don't matter. Russian naval strategy emphasizes submarines instead and that's fine for their defensive purposes and their missiles can disable Chinese invasion with 5 or 10 aircraft carriers. So actually is more like comparing apples and pears.

Of course the west would love for the Russian navy to not bother with those big vessels and just concentrate on small corvettes and frigates, but for the Russian navy to grow it needs larger ships.

Just because 10 frigates could have similar firepower to one Kirov class cruiser does not mean they don't need cruisers.

Big ships can do rather a lot more than smaller vessels can do, and have unique capabilities, including surface action group command duties...

Back on topic having hundreds of mini subs might be cheaper than having 8 Borei class SSBNs but at the end of the day manning hundreds of mini subs will be a problem and a mini sub is not ideal for carrying SLBMs.

Yes, it's about range. US can get their weapons on Russian border in Europe but Russia can't do the same, so they have big need for naval component of strategic deterrent and possibly also power projection far from home.

For the first time since the Cold war, Russia has once again a significant constant naval formation in the Mediterranean.

It was first proposed after Arab spring in 2011 and after Kuznetsov's group visited Tartus in 2016, an initial 10 ships and submarines strong task force has been established, allowing Russia constant presence in the strategic region. Since then, it was increased to 15 in 2016, 20 last year, 22 on Friday and 24 today. Some even talk about 28 ships and submarines. But the question is what boats exactly are present. We can be certain about 2 Admiral Grigorovich frigates, 2 older frigates and destroyer (Kushin, Krivak II, Yaroslav Mudriy), 2 Improved Kilo submarines, 3 Ropucha LTSs and some minesweppers, tankers, patrol boats and tugs.

There have been however certain indications for presence of 2 SSNs and additional 4 SSK. What is the likelihood and does anybody have any good source?

Here are some outdated information: https://russiandefpolicy.blog/2017/06/12/russia-reinforcing-mediterranean-formation/

verkhoturye51 wrote:The most pessimistic projections suggest that Chinese navy will surpass Russian around year 2030. Right now China is still in the phase of modernization and not expansion. The number of vessels and submarines is the same since Cold war.

China is decades away from being technologically superior to Russia, which dominates certain areas even above US navy (supersonic cruise missiles, big part of submarine related tech). The recent leap forward is only due to Russian willingness to sell them some advanced tech after western sanctions. But the know how remains in Russian universities and is the only long term guarranty of tech advance.

Aircraft carriers don't matter. Russian naval strategy emphasizes submarines instead and that's fine for their defensive purposes and their missiles can disable Chinese invasion with 5 or 10 aircraft carriers. So actually is more like comparing apples and pears.

But you cant just look at pure numbers. Yes the vessels and submarines might be about the same as it was during the Cold war, but you cant honestly compare old Romeo och Whiskey copies with the lastest Type-041 and Type-039 submarines for exampel. Or compare todays surface fleet with the fleet of the late 1980s?

If u want to look at numbers just look at production of new vessels for Russia and China during the last 10-12 years.

Destroyers
Russia:0 China:~22

Frigates
Russia: 4? China: ~30

Corvettes
Russia: ~12 China: ~40

Submarines
Russia: 12? China: ~30

Add to this that china is speeding up its production and Russia seems to be slowing down at the moment.

Half the Chinese borders are on the coast and 80% of their population live in coastal region to say nothing of the fact that practically their entire trade is dependent on sea lanes

I am actually surprised they lasted this long without proper Navy but they are fixing it now

Russia is land power, population is deep inland, trade and resources are as well and, Arctic aside, coast is negligible in size

Russian Navy is there to service and cover submarine fleet

As long as submarines are kept in good numbers and in good condition they are sitting pretty

SeigSoloyvov wrote:Large surface ships aren't going away EVER. Missiles only fill one small area of a much bigger picture

A navy needs large hulls to patrol in the far ocean zone away from borders.

It needs aircraft carriers to conduct missions where it has no access to airbases.

It needs Helio Carriers to support different types of operations.

If you think "missiles" is the answer to everything, that just deluded thinking.

Spoken like a true Murican, where a navy is intended as a power projection force and is invariably to be used to assert your will over distant nations and inflict aggression.

Russian navy is DEFENSIVE and as such, doesn't need to do those things. Area denial is their modus operandi, and the USN knows precisely how useful their navy will be when its flat-tops are aflame and no longer able to launch or recover aircraft. Sink a US carrier or burn her to the waterline and the US loses. Hypersonic weapons are a deadly threat to USN carriers, and the brass knows that their Aegis and current defenses are inadequate, while Sci-Fi weapons like lasers and railguns are a useless dead-end.

China needs a large navy as they will need to be able to assert control of the Asian Pacific Rim in the event of war, so they are tooling up bigly, but they are also aware that hypersonics are the big game changer, and in their corner of the world it will be land-based stand-off weapons that will tip the balance in their favour. The time will come when the idea of the US projecting power to the West Pacific will be nothing short of suicidal, and the USN brass knows it.

PapaDragon wrote:
Half the Chinese borders are on the coast and 80% of their population live in coastal region to say nothing of the fact that practically their entire trade is dependent on sea lanes

I am actually surprised they lasted this long without proper Navy but they are fixing it now

Russia is land power, population is deep inland, trade and resources are as well and, Arctic aside, coast is negligible in size

Russian Navy is there to service and cover submarine fleet

As long as submarines are kept in good numbers and in good condition they are sitting pretty

Well said PD.  I simply cannot understand these idiots who think that the RuN is useless because it doesn't have 14x 100k supercarriers...  Its an area denial force, and with their priorities on subs and hypersonics, combined with land-based stand-off strike capabilities, you'd have to be crazed to want to send CVNs into those shark-infested waters.

Big_Gazza wrote:

SeigSoloyvov wrote:Large surface ships aren't going away EVER. Missiles only fill one small area of a much bigger picture

A navy needs large hulls to patrol in the far ocean zone away from borders.

It needs aircraft carriers to conduct missions where it has no access to airbases.

It needs Helio Carriers to support different types of operations.

If you think "missiles" is the answer to everything, that just deluded thinking.

Spoken like a true Murican, where a navy is intended as a power projection force and is invariably to be used to assert your will over distant nations and inflict aggression.

Russian navy is DEFENSIVE and as such, doesn't need to do those things.  Area denial is their modus operandi, and the USN knows precisely how useful their navy will be when its flat-tops are aflame and no longer able to launch or recover aircraft.  Sink a US carrier or burn her to the waterline and the US loses.  Hypersonic weapons are a deadly threat to USN carriers, and the brass knows that their Aegis and current defenses are inadequate, while Sci-Fi weapons like lasers and railguns are a useless dead-end.

China needs a large navy as they will need to be able to assert control of the Asian Pacific Rim in the event of war, so they are tooling up bigly, but they are also aware that hypersonics are the big game changer, and in their corner of the world it will be land-based stand-off weapons that will tip the balance in their favour.  The time will come when the idea of the US projecting power to the West Pacific will be nothing short of suicidal, and the USN brass knows it.

Lawls you realize the Russians plan to build those ships?.

Your statement acts like the Russians have no plans to build such vessels, guess what bud they DO.

Your entire point is made entirely pointless by the Russians themselves, I don't even need to argue with you.

This has nothing to do with being "murican" this is standard naval practice, that is how a navy works.

That is the navy Russia wants, They want Cruisers, DD's, Amp ships, Carriers.

so don't sit there and talk like they don't that is just ignoring facts.

No need to argue, you both are right.

Russia is landlocked country and doesn't need carriers that urgently, because their army is mostly defensive, but not entirely.

2-4 CVNs would be very useful for:

1. campaigns like Syria (they sent Kuznetsov down there, remember? And I think we all hope they be more active in the future)

2. patrolling world oceans (yes it's US thing, but Russian submarines and Vishnya intelligence ships are found commonly around US coast and they terribly want to send a large ship around the world occasionally to show they have a blue water navy too - it's about national self esteem, as well as matter of respect at G20 meetings - if Russia had 12 Liders back in 2011, US would think twice before bombing Gaddafi)

Today's defensive position is reality that Russians live in, because their geopolitics worsened enormously after breakup of SU. They control only tiny portion of Caspian see, Black sea, Baltic sea and it's normally that they have to be defensive. This is however gradually to change in the coming decades, as Russia will get greater army, greater respect of their interests in the world, more allies = bigger need for large surface ships far away from home. While expecting an expansion to the size of Soviet Navy would be too optimistic, we can expect that they will try at least too keep up with Chinese, if there will be no economic problems.

China needs a bigger Navy, because they own territory (islands) way of the coast. In nature it´s defensive.

Russia will always have a mix of large and small ships, because of the smaller seas surrounding it. Today you don´t need large crusiers to Control the Baltics, Black Sea or Barents Sea.

Amiland needs bigger ships, because... look at a map. There is nothing aorund them, just water. Its a long way to go from Amiland to Europe or Asia.

SeigSoloyvov wrote:

Big_Gazza wrote:

SeigSoloyvov wrote:Large surface ships aren't going away EVER. Missiles only fill one small area of a much bigger picture

A navy needs large hulls to patrol in the far ocean zone away from borders.

It needs aircraft carriers to conduct missions where it has no access to airbases.

It needs Helio Carriers to support different types of operations.

If you think "missiles" is the answer to everything, that just deluded thinking.

Spoken like a true Murican, where a navy is intended as a power projection force and is invariably to be used to assert your will over distant nations and inflict aggression.

Russian navy is DEFENSIVE and as such, doesn't need to do those things.  Area denial is their modus operandi, and the USN knows precisely how useful their navy will be when its flat-tops are aflame and no longer able to launch or recover aircraft.  Sink a US carrier or burn her to the waterline and the US loses.  Hypersonic weapons are a deadly threat to USN carriers, and the brass knows that their Aegis and current defenses are inadequate, while Sci-Fi weapons like lasers and railguns are a useless dead-end.

China needs a large navy as they will need to be able to assert control of the Asian Pacific Rim in the event of war, so they are tooling up bigly, but they are also aware that hypersonics are the big game changer, and in their corner of the world it will be land-based stand-off weapons that will tip the balance in their favour.  The time will come when the idea of the US projecting power to the West Pacific will be nothing short of suicidal, and the USN brass knows it.

Lawls you realize the Russians plan to build those ships?.

Your statement acts like the Russians have no plans to build such vessels, guess what bud they DO.

Your entire point is made entirely pointless by the Russians themselves, I don't even need to argue with you.

This has nothing to do with being "murican" this is standard naval practice, that is how a navy works.

That is the navy Russia wants, They want Cruisers, DD's, Amp ships, Carriers.

so don't sit there and talk like they don't that is just ignoring facts.

Hear hear!

SeigSoloyvov wrote:
Lawls you realize the Russians plan to build those ships?.

Your statement acts like the Russians have no plans to build such vessels, guess what bud they DO.

Your entire point is made entirely pointless by the Russians themselves, I don't even need to argue with you.

This has nothing to do with being "murican" this is standard naval practice, that is how a navy works.

That is the navy Russia wants, They want Cruisers, DD's, Amp ships, Carriers.

so don't sit there and talk like they don't that is just ignoring facts.

Get serious or quit posting...

Russia wants a bigger surface fleet as such vessels are still useful for scenarios that don't involve a mass attack by US naval forces. Its also important to have a visible fleet component that can fly the flag and demonstrate Russian commitment in far-flung areas (eg Syria). Its nice having a few Yasens prowling around a hot-spot, and keeps the USN brass "alert", but for PR outreach and to gain respect from ones enemies political class its better to have a pair of 20kT cruisers bristling with hypersonics, plus her attendant escorts.

Wanting a larger surface fleet, while recognizing the obsolescence of surface fleets in mass engagements with a hypersonic weapon-armed peer opponent in their home water (ie within range of land-based forces) is not inconsistent. Of course, you already know this, but have nevertheless decided to engage in pointless deflection instead of open acknowledgement of the truth...

Right now the pressure the US and the west is applying to Russia to be a good little defeated colony and do as it is told wont work... there is a history of the west telling Russia how things are and Russia totally ignoring them... perfectly understandable of course, though the US does not understand.

The thing is that now that Russia knows the west is basically hostile to them they have to look for other partners to trade with and new partners are not accessible via land borders.

Do you think if Russia suddenly starts exporting lots of goods to Africa or central and south america that the west will just sit by and watch?

They will try all sorts of shit to inhibit or even sabotage such trade that they get no cut of.

Russia does not need a large powerful navy to survive... it doesn't.

It does need a powerful but compact navy to prosper... fixed wing aircraft carriers make small groups of ships and subs rather more powerful... with better vision and better reach and better strength in depth.

Hypersonic missiles just makes layered defences more important... powerful SAMs and AAMs don't mean airforces are obsolescent, just the same as ATGMs don't make tanks or any other armoured vehicle obsolete... tactics need to change... and evolve but ships and subs remain necessary for defence and to protect assets and Sea lines of communication and trade.

Navy is the only mean of reaching remote parts of the world and can have huge geopolitical impact. Absence of blue water navy means no way of opposing opponent's geostrategic interests, like regime changes in Cuba or Venezuela. ICBMs are only a deterrent force, while Russian strategic air component is perhaps the weakest part of the army.

Do you think it's coincidence that Russians had the most friends in the Third world in the 1960-1990 era? Without naval assets for resupply they would be left to mercy of US supported block and perhaps anticolonialism would be significantly less successful.

In the meantime, US sends another CVN to Mediterranean to compete with Russian presence there (in the last 4 days they sent additional two frigates, destroyer and a tanker):

https://twitter.com/LepontDahu/status/988312740749021184

verkhoturye51 wrote:Navy is the only mean of reaching remote parts of the world and can have huge geopolitical impact. Absence of blue water navy means no way of opposing opponent's geostrategic interests, like regime changes in Cuba or Venezuela. ICBMs are only a deterrent force, while Russian strategic air component is perhaps the weakest part of the army.

Do you think it's coincidence that Russians had the most friends in the Third world in the 1960-1990 era? Without naval assets for resupply they would be left to mercy of US supported block and perhaps anticolonialism would be significantly less successful.

In the meantime, US sends another CVN to Mediterranean to compete with Russian presence there (in the last 4 days they sent additional two frigates, destroyer and a tanker):

https://twitter.com/LepontDahu/status/988312740749021184

Russia is not interested in being the global cop. Venezuela has itself to blame for its looming collapse. It is a sad case of unskilled leadership that
could not fill the shoes of Chavez. If Russia is not going to "save" Ukraine, it has no business trying to save the failed state called Venezuela.
Really, Latin Americans need to get their sh*t together. They have been letting Uncle Scumbag sodomize them for way too long.

One of the biggest pluses for Russia from the collapse of the USSR has been the discontinuation of global intervention in the name of some
ideology. The propagation of these ideals and agendas lubricated the meddling of Uncle Scumbag. Without this lubrication, Uncle Scumbag
is actually losing his grip. The world is way too big for any country to manage. Rome couldn't even manage a bunch of barbarians in a vastly
smaller geographical region. If Russia starts to meddle, it will benefit the US parasite the most.

Syria and the middle east are different since Russia is building a bulwark (Lebanon-Syria-Iraq-Iran- later Afghanistan) against the Wahabbi jihadi
hordes. This is about managing a direct threat to Russia and not about global policing.