Russian Navy: Status & News #4

GarryB wrote:They don't need 13 carrier groups.

Russian ambitions and involvement in the world politics are growing and so are their oceanic patrols. That's limiting US "world cop" policy and (economicaly and politicaly) benefiting for Russia and should be thus supported with as many CSGs as possible. So the real question is what can they afford, which depends on many unknowns, but first and foremost oil price and sanctions. On no account however should they a priori limit themselves to 2 or 3 CSGs.

Having one in Arctic, one in Pacific, one in Mediterranean and one at repairs, doesn't sound overly ambitious too me. If most analytics are right and China wants 4 CSGs, Russia should have the same number to keep the title of world's second best navy.

Hole wrote:Lomonossov ridge is in the arctic. Right in front of the russian coast. Next to it are new bases and airfields. Who should challenge Russia there? Amiland? With one icebreaker?

Everybody wants to go to Arctic, because of resources in the disputed area and Northern sea route. If Russians want to profit from those, they first need to take control. Existing bases are more than 1000 km away and hence offer defence capabilities only. As somebody mentioned in this topic, large surface ships/artificial islands are needed to take control of sea. Should Russian oil ridge or tanker in the disputed area be disturbed by foreign military vessels, interceptors and attack airplanes from distant Franz Josef Land won't be able to offer much help. This, on the other hand, could make them get the message:

..if Argentina had been a real Soviet ally the Soviets could have lent them some Mig-23s and the British would have been in the poo.

Chile & the US would've intervened even more on the UK side.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/apr/01/us-feared-falklands-war-documents  http://www.spyflight.co.uk/chile.htm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Mikado
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawker_Hunter#South_America
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_F-5#Operators
http://en.mercopress.com/2009/11/23/chile-was-next-target-after-falklands-in-1982-admits-argentine-brigadier https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beagle_conflict

The MiG-23s (piloted by Cubans, etc. as there was no time to train Argentinians) would be engaged & shot down by the Chilean AF.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikoyan-Gurevich_MiG-23#Operators

So, all things considered, participation in that war wasn't worth the risk of losing planes & pilots.

Having one in Arctic, one in Pacific, one in Mediterranean and one at repairs, doesn't sound overly ambitious too me. If most analytics are right and China wants 4 CSGs, Russia should have the same number to keep the title of world's second best navy.

They already have the Kuznetsov which... with an upgrade and overhaul would be perfectly adequate to operate from the black sea and the med general area, while the Pacific and Northern Fleet could do with a nuke each... whether they were catamarans or not or some clever design that maximised capacity while minimising weight and cost is up to Russian engineers... but slightly bigger capacity than the kuznetsov seems to be what they want.

Everybody wants to go to Arctic, because of resources in the disputed area and Northern sea route. If Russians want to profit from those, they first need to take control. Existing bases are more than 1000 km away and hence offer defence capabilities only. As somebody mentioned in this topic, large surface ships/artificial islands are needed to take control of sea. Should Russian oil ridge or tanker in the disputed area be disturbed by foreign military vessels, interceptors and attack airplanes from distant Franz Josef Land won't be able to offer much help. This, on the other hand, could make them get the message:

Russia is opening military bases all along the arctic, so I really don't see an urgent need for carriers there... even with a carrier based up there the fastest thing to any place in the far north would likely be a MiG-31 with a kinzhal missile...

Arctic bases would need air supply so runways will be critical for transport planes... which means fighter aircraft could operate up there too...

Chile & the US would've intervened even more on the UK side.

The US was bound by an agreement to defend central and south american countries from external threats like the UK... there was a big stink anyway regarding the US not helping Argentina, so there would be little chance of any other country getting involved...

The MiG-23s (piloted by Cubans, etc. as there was no time to train Argentinians) would be engaged & shot down by the Chilean AF.

You have a very high opinion of the Chilean air force... what makes you think a sidewinder armed F-5 could beat a MiG-23?

So, all things considered, participation in that war wasn't worth the risk of losing planes & pilots.

Wasn't worth it for who?

If Argentina was a Soviet Ally of course it would be worth equipping them with MiGs and helping them take back their Malvinas from the British...

Even just to make the US look bad for not helping an american ally.

The US was bound by an agreement to defend central and south american countries from external threats like the UK... there was a big stink anyway regarding the US not helping Argentina, so there would be little chance of any other country getting involved

The US & UK have special relationship, in that context the Monroe Doctrine & the US obligations within the OAS went out the window.
Should the Falklands Actually Belong to Uruguay?
So far, Argentina is lucky that Uruguay doesn't press its claim there. The UK could make an alliance with it against Argentina & use that country airbases there to bomb Buenos Aires & other targets in N. & C. Argentina as well.
The US wouldn't allow another Cuba in L. America with claims in Antarctica. Chile & Grenada already tried & failed.

You have a very high opinion of the Chilean air force... what makes you think a sidewinder armed F-5 could beat a MiG-23?

If not, the British, Israeli & US pilots based in Chile would help them in their fighters. The MiG-23s didn't have the range to fly from USSR to Argentina via Cuba or Angola (even with the IFR, they could be intercepted & shot down) & a naval blockade would stop their delivery- that btw would take a long time, even under the best of conditions. A case of "tyranny of geography"! If the junta waited & got those fighters 1st before invading, their chances would've been better, esp. having Brazil on its side: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2133804/Brazil-helped-Argentina-Falklands-War-supplying-aeroplanes-bombs-ammunition-fight-British-forces.html
Before the war, the UK was negotiating handing the islands to Argentina & leasing them back for 99 years: https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2005/jun/28/falklands.past

Wasn't worth it for who?

The USSR & Cuba. Both were concerned about their interventions in Afghanistan, Nicaragua & Angola; they didn't need to open another front in the US backyard.

The US & UK have special relationship, in that context the Monroe Doctrine & the US obligations within the OAS went out the window.

Indeed, you don't need to be able to out swim the shark... you just have to not be the slowest swimmer in the group...

The US wouldn't allow another Cuba in L. America with claims in Antarctica.

You make it sound like they get a choice...

Chile & Grenada already tried & failed.

Ahhh, come on... lets not be shy... the number of potential leaders that were pro people and anti rich mans agenda and not so friendly to the US that America has had murdered in central and south america you can't count on two hands, but do you think the people of the region don't notice?

It is only a brutal military dictatorship if they don't cooperate with the US... otherwise they are fine, they can do what they like...

If not, the British, Israeli & US pilots based in Chile would help them in their fighters.

Do you really think Chile would openly allow its aircraft to fight a British war against Argentina?

The MiG-23s didn't have the range to fly from USSR to Argentina via Cuba or Angola (even with the IFR, they could be intercepted & shot down) & a naval blockade would stop their delivery- that btw would take a long time, even under the best of conditions.

I am not suggesting they send them to help the Argentinians after the UK taskforce arrive... I am suggesting that the Argentines plan their attack better and get prepared before hand by buying MiG-23s and training up to use them and then invading the Malvinas.

The reality is that I suspect the Argentinians probably didn't expect a woman in charge of the UK would send a military force to take the islands back... but they should have expected it because all western politicians love that sort of thing... their greatest hour and all that hogwash...

Before the war, the UK was negotiating handing the islands to Argentina & leasing them back for 99 years:

Yeah right... hoping it would only take 99 years to strip them of any useful resources and then hand them back...

Very amusing considering all the bullshit about the islands being British and the people on their being British... were they suddenly going to stop being British in 99 years?

The MiG-23s didn't have the range to fly from USSR to Argentina via Cuba or Angola (even with the IFR, they could be intercepted & shot down) & a naval blockade would stop their delivery- that btw would take a long time, even under the best of conditions.

Yeah.... not really impressed with a British naval blockade considering the damage some Exocets managed to cause... imagine the damage some decent anti ship missiles could have caused... besides I am suggesting better preparation rather than last minute reaction.

A case of "tyranny of geography"! If the junta waited & got those fighters 1st before invading, their chances would've been better, esp. having Brazil on its side

That same tyranny effected the British... in fact even more so... with an SSN the Argentinians could not really compete at sea, but they had every chance of competing in the air... the only thing that limited them was their trust in the US... basically the relationship was... countries of central and south america... accept crap second rate aircraft like Mirage IIIs and Skyhawks and F-5s, but in return we will back you up from outside aggression... but it was really the US support for the UK that made them realise how hollow that support really was.

The USSR & Cuba. Both were concerned about their interventions in Afghanistan, Nicaragua & Angola; they didn't need to open another front in the US backyard.

Apart from the fact that it was in a place with America in its name it really was none of Americas business, and they really didn't actually lift a finger to actually help either side.

From a Soviet perspective sales of MiG-23s to Argentina would have been useful... and thwarting the British would have been the icing on the cake...

Do you really think Chile would openly allow its aircraft to fight a British war against Argentina?

As they were afraid of being attacked by Argentina later, & with Soviet supplied fighters, why not? It would be their war as well.

You make it sound like they get a choice..
..not really impressed with a British naval blockade..

Don't know what u mean, but the US was very allergic to any Soviet/Cuban influence, real or imagined, & wanted a free hand for its corporations in all of L. America (that's why they intervened there changed a few regimes & supported all those juntas, offering protections against foreign & domestic Communists & other left parties), & in the end had to help their closest NATO ally (which btw was Russia's enemy for most of the last ~400+years) by providing Intel & Sidewinder AAMs. For this reason, the USN would've been helping in the blockade too.

From a Soviet perspective sales of MiG-23s to Argentina would have been useful...

I doubt that Argentina could even afford them in sufficient #s to make any difference. Even if they did, the USAF & RAF could bomb their airfields & destroy runways & many fighters on the ground.
The Soviets realized that Argentina is too remote, even from Cuba, while the UK has islands in the S. Atlantic, the US & Chile r on its side, & that the British won't tolerate this affront from a former Spanish colony. Also, the USSR was trying to have better relations with W. Europe at the expense of USA relations within NATO. Siding with the junta in any meaningful way would have only prolonged the war & created more West vs. East antagonism in Europe, Asia, Africa & L. America, undermining Soviet foreign policy goals, & w/o any lasting benefits. Back then, their media coverage was mostly neutral but in the long run, it wasn't worth their time, blood & treasure to help Argentina.

BDK "Ivan Gren" will sail to the NF by 11/1st : https://tvzvezda.ru/news/opk/content/201810130021-5h2a.htm

The construction of bases for ships of the Caspian fleet is to be completed by 1/1/19: https://tvzvezda.ru/news/forces/content/201810150230-cywl.htm

From there, they won't need to go too far to launch their LACMs again!

https://saidpvo.livejournal.com/757173.html

Nice pictures of missiles, launchers, radars during an exposition.

Don't know what u mean, but the US was very allergic to any Soviet/Cuban influence, real or imagined, & wanted a free hand for its corporations in all of L. America (that's why they intervened there changed a few regimes & supported all those juntas, offering protections against foreign & domestic Communists & other left parties

I understand how colonial powers work...

Ironic that Castro asked the US for help and when they refused the Soviets stepped up to the plate... and the rest is history... but they didn't learn that lesson and when the Vietnamese asked for US help to get rid of the French and take their country back, again the US did nothing... and the Soviets and Chinese stepped up... and helped them kick out the French and then the US and her allies.

& in the end had to help their closest NATO ally (which btw was Russia's enemy for most of the last ~400+years) by providing Intel & Sidewinder AAMs. For this reason, the USN would've been helping in the blockade too.

The Sidewinders were already in the UK... they took them for stocks set aside for NATO use... and the intel wasn't that comprehensive... it certainly wasn't critical...

Reagan didn't want to piss off all of central and south america by openly supporting the UK against Argentina...

I doubt that Argentina could even afford them in sufficient #s to make any difference. Even if they did, the USAF & RAF could bomb their airfields & destroy runways & many fighters on the ground.

There is no chance of the USAF getting involved, and how would the Royal Airforce get down there?

I doubt they could send Vulcans to attack an airfield defended by MiG-23s, let alone fighter aircraft...

The Soviets realized that Argentina is too remote, even from Cuba, while the UK has islands in the S. Atlantic, the US & Chile r on its side, & that the British won't tolerate this affront from a former Spanish colony. Also, the USSR was trying to have better relations with W. Europe at the expense of USA relations within NATO. Siding with the junta in any meaningful way would have only prolonged the war & created more West vs. East antagonism in Europe, Asia, Africa & L. America, undermining Soviet foreign policy goals, & w/o any lasting benefits. Back then, their media coverage was mostly neutral but in the long run, it wasn't worth their time, blood & treasure to help Argentina.

They didn't have to send any troops to support the invasion, just ship some fighters down a few years before the invasion... a bit of training... and at the time the USSR was hardly having good relations with Europe... in 1982 they were still getting shot at from Chinese AKs bought with American money by the Pakistani secret service and passed on to the Afghans.

The Soviets wouldn't have needed to risk anything... simply supplying MiG-23s and the UK task force probably never would have sailed in the first place because the risks would have been considered too high...

..and how would the Royal Air force get down there?

They could be based in Chile &/ Uruguay, delivered there by ships.
https://worldview.stratfor.com/article/chiles-interest-falkland-islands-dispute
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-17576856

Even a few years before 1982, I doubt Argentina could afford MiG-23s ; the USSR was the ideological enemy of the junta during the whole dirty war there (from 1974 to 1983), thus most likely not sell them fighters, even if they were anti-British. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirty_War

Also, shot down/defected/captured fighters/pilots would fall into UK & American hands, revealing their strong & weak points. Argentina wasn't anti-US & could/would give them access to those MiGs after the war. All of which the Soviets would like to avoid.

Even a few years before 1982, I doubt Argentina could afford MiG-23s

I doubt the Afghans could afford the billions of dollars worth of Chinese weapons the US was buying and supplying to them via the Pakistani secret service, but that didn't really come in to it.

A friendly port in the South Atlantic would be useful for the Soviets... having a few major vessels there visiting while the Argentines took back the Malvinas wouldn't have hurt at all.

the USSR was the ideological enemy of the junta during the whole dirty war there (from 1974 to 1983

The Warsaw Pact included East Germany and Poland, which were hardly Soviet allies either... Sunni muslim fanatics are hardly friends of the west... Osama Bin Laden was no US ally even though he made his fortune in the 1980s in Afghanistan with the US taxpayers dollar...

thus most likely not sell them fighters, even if they were anti-British.

The MiG-23 was hardly their best fighter at the time... even some MiG-21s with SARH model AA-2s would have allowed frontal attacks... in fact the IR homing model would have been rather useful against Sea Harriers due to the positioning of their jet nozzles at the side...

Also, shot down/defected/captured fighters/pilots would fall into UK & American hands, revealing their strong & weak points. Argentina wasn't anti-US & could/would give them access to those MiGs after the war. All of which the Soviets would like to avoid.

By 1982 there were not that many secrets regarding most models of MiG-23... it was the Su-27 and MiG-29 that were real secrets then...

The British were also supporting the Afghans... they provided Blowpipe MANPAD and Milan ATGMs, though they were not actually very effectively used by the rebels... who ironically preferred the simpler more robust Soviet equipment and its Chinese rip-offs.

The point is that with MiG-23s or MiG-21s in place the option to actually take a task force down there to try to take them back would have been vastly more risky, with a much lower chance of success.

I really don't think Chile or Uraguay would have wanted to get involved, and the Americans showed they had no interest in supporting the retaking of the islands.

The point I am trying to make however is that if the Argentines had attacked a few years earlier and the British still had the Ark Royal in service, with Phantoms for fighters, Buccaneers for the strike mission and proper AWACS platforms that were aircraft that were not helicopters it would have all been quite a bit easier... with fewer ship losses and fewer Brits killed...

A decent fixed wing carrier would have made an enormous difference... and it is probably why the Argentines didn't try anything then.

Most likely it was a combination of untested in combat Harrier jump jets with tiny carriers and a woman in charge that led the argentine leadership to think they might get away with it.

The British were lucky.

Tsavo Lion wrote:BDK "Ivan Gren" will sail to the NF by 11/1st : https://tvzvezda.ru/news/opk/content/201810130021-5h2a.htm

The construction of bases for ships of the Caspian fleet is to be completed by 1/1/19: https://tvzvezda.ru/news/forces/content/201810150230-cywl.htm

From there, they won't need to go too far to launch their LACMs again!

The main ships of the Caspian Flotilla was yet to Makhachkala what name ! Gepard, Buyan and Tarantul but with worcks now not visible on GE have moved out
to Kaspyysk some missile/Gun boats ( also a SS-C-6 Bn ) exist also 2 very small pots to Pristan’ Nikolo-Komarovka and Zolotoy Zaton near Astrakhan

I doubt the Afghans could afford the billions of dollars worth of Chinese weapons the US was buying and supplying to them via the Pakistani secret service, ..

Saudi Arabia & UAE paid for them.

Sunni Muslim fanatics are hardly friends of the west... Osama Bin Laden was no US ally even though he made his fortune in the 1980s in Afghanistan with the US taxpayers dollar...

it was a marriage of convenience; any1 aiding against the Soviets & their puppets were welcome, & the CIA used their drug $ to outfit them.

The British were also supporting the Afghans... they provided Blowpipe MANPAD and Milan ATGMs,..
if the Argentines had attacked a few years earlier and the British still had the Ark Royal in service, with Phantoms for fighters, Buccaneers for the strike mission and proper AWACS platforms that were aircraft that were not helicopters it would have all been quite a bit easier... with fewer ship losses and fewer Brits killed...

If it was important to them to give the Brits a bloody nose & help Argentina, the USSR could send her subs against the RN, just like the RN did to keep the Argentinian CV in port. But they didn't in 1982. OTH, the RN SSBNs could be used against Argentinian airfields & naval bases with conventional or low yield nukes.
The USN would have sent a CTF with 2-3 CV/Ns, & possibly B-52s from CONUS &/ S. Africa; 1 RN CV wasn't going to make a big dent if Argentina had real help from Cuba & the USSR.

Saudi Arabia & UAE paid for them.

Yes, they did, but the US also contributed too.

it was a marriage of convenience; any1 aiding against the Soviets & their puppets were welcome, & the CIA used their drug $ to outfit them.

Yup... the west will get into bed with the ugliest trash whore around if it thinks it will benefit from it... and it never takes the time to really think about what it is doing...

I mean if the west can cooperate with Stalin against Hitler and Chinese communism against Soviet communism then they really are not opposed to cooperating with anyone... and I certainly understand the Soviets fighting Hitler, because the German invasion of the Soviet Union was a war of extermination and land theft, but for the west it was more about defeating a rival to domination of Europe... they cooperated with Stalin until Hitler was gone but then Stalin became the rival to the domination of Europe...

But if the US could cooperate with communist China, why not the communist Soviet Union... and the reason again is that the Soviets had the potential to replace the US as the dominant power in Europe... and currently Russia still does.

The real problem however is that the west is stupid and thinks the enemy of my enemy is my friend.... which is a serious abuse of the word and concept of friend of course. What they are really saying is that I will help your enemies so they can damage you in the hope that they never become dominant and damage me.

If it was important to them to give the Brits a bloody nose & help Argentina, the USSR could send her subs against the RN, just like the RN did to keep the Argentinian CV in port. But they didn't in 1982.

Was never going to happen.... Argentina was not flexible enough to prepare properly for the bite they took... they couldn't chew and choked.

OTH, the RN SSBNs could be used against Argentinian airfields & naval bases with conventional or low yield nukes.

British subs would certainly not use nukes and none of their SSBNs had missiles with low yield warheads of conventional warheads.

The USN would have sent a CTF with 2-3 CV/Ns, & possibly B-52s from CONUS &/ S. Africa; 1 RN CV wasn't going to make a big dent if Argentina had real help from Cuba & the USSR.

There is no situation where the USN would have sent anything... they really didn't want to get involved.

One full sized fixed wing carrier with Phantoms and Buccaneers and AWACS aircraft from Britain and the Soviets and the Cubans would really not be able to do very much.

They certainly would not have sent ships to the Falkland Islands, and it is unlikely they would have sent any to Argentina.

MiG-23s in the hands of Argentina might have been OK... they certainly handled the planes they did have with skill and heroism... but while I think the MiG-23s with BVR missiles would have mopped the floor with Harriers and Sidewinders of any type, against an F-4 also with BVR missiles the fight would not have been so clear cut...

Those Buccaneers could have done to the runways on the islands what they had to use Vulcans for and they likely would have done a much better job, though MiG-23s have reasonable rough field operations capability and rather good flight range...

It would have been rather interesting.

The USC talked about the development of an anaerobic unit for submarines

MOSCOW, October 19 - RIA News. The development of an air-independent power plant for the newest non-nuclear submarines is on ground-based prototypes, but the marine will soon appear, said Alexei Rakhmanov, president of the United Shipbuilding Corporation (USC).

"It will be close to real conditions, then we will discuss the topic - what is better, what is worse," he said.

The Central Design Bureau "Rubin", "Malachite" and the Krylov State Research Center are working on the project. At the same time, its profitability is being studied, the agency’s interlocutor added
“Any work should have an economic sense. As soon as we see it, we will implement it,” concluded Rakhmanov.
Installation tests should be completed by the end of 2021



РИА Новости https://ria.ru/defense_safety/20181019/1531015680.html

"Russia’s new maritime doctrine and issues with the surface fleet."




https://southfront.org/russias-maritime-doctrine-and-issues-with-the-surface-fleet/

Missiles of the Russian Navy will receive unmanned "eyes" https://bmpd.livejournal.com/2210499.html
http://politrussia.com/vooruzhennye-sily/sverkhsekretnyy-vertolet-putina-744/

It's not a full fledged AWACS, but enough for target designation tasks!

Interesting, but Ka-27 sized UAVs will be enormously expensive, though I suppose you could adapt old airframes whose life has nearly expired and use them as disposable items... but it is hardly compact... most ships could only carry one at most... and of course being a helo based aircraft it wont be fast and it wont have a very great range.

In certain situation it would be rather useful and for time expired airframes it would make sense, though the sensors fitted will make it a rather expensive expendable system...

As mentioned in the first article the Ka-31 (called Ka-35 now) is probably more useful, but rather more important a fixed wing aircraft... whether manned or unmanned would be much faster and much longer ranged, and offer rather better endurance... and to be honest I think the Liana satellite network makes more sense to rebuild with modern high tech components and sensors too.

You could even make a 50kg optical system and put it in a 300km low earth orbit and launch it from a MiG-31 when you want it... a semi disposable short term satellite that can be launched when needed probably makes rather more sense than a disposable 12 ton helicopter... whether it is manned or unmanned.

Of course a stealthy version of the PAK DA could also be a replacement for the Tu-142 in the MPA role...

And then again a huge airship design with enormous radar antenna, nuclear energy generation with electric propulsion as well as hydrogen fuel cell technology to allow water ballast and hydrogen lift... you could use electricity from the nuclear PP with the fuel cell to generate hydrogen or water... depending on whether you need lift or ballast... Solar panels could also generate free energy but for large radar antennas of high power a nuclear power plant would generate a powerful reliable energy source... you could surround the reactor with water ballast for radiation protection for the crew.

A large supply ship in the group could accommodate several Ka-27 sized UAVs, & some could be even modified as tankers to extend their range.

par far wrote:"Russia’s new maritime doctrine and issues with the surface fleet."




https://southfront.org/russias-maritime-doctrine-and-issues-with-the-surface-fleet/

Russian submarines and surface fleet are vulnerable because they lack fighter cover from CVNs?

Does anybody think that this could be mitigated with cutting edge AD systems and helicopters on smaller ships? They could be submarine's eyes and complement it with reconnaissance, firepower and support. Submarines could be also fitted with UUV, that is also UAV.

verkhoturye51 wrote:

Russian submarines and surface fleet are vulnerable because they lack fighter cover from CVNs?

Does anybody think that this could be mitigated with cutting edge AD systems and helicopters on smaller ships? They could be submarine's eyes and complement it with reconnaissance, firepower and support. Submarines could be also fitted with UUV, that is also UAV.

Russian ships would operate under the cover of the air force near its border. Once a naval group is spotted they would load tu-22M and organised a cordinatated massive launch with the ships, specially the small corvettes/ missile ships. In matter of hours after the deection of enemy ships.

What they need is more il-38M and more AWACS. They have enough missiles and the panned ships will more than enough against any navy.

Their SSK would be safe and all P-8 trying to find them would be shot down by r-37.