Russian Navy: Status & News #4

"PS. the declared range of western cruise missile systems is always intentionally trimmed down for political reasons."

Well, it´s the other way around. The west tends to exaggerate the capabilities of his weapons. If a Missile has a range of 105 km, they say it´s 100+ km. Or they use data from tests without warhead.

Hole wrote:"PS. the declared range of western cruise missile systems is always intentionally trimmed down for political reasons."

Well, it´s the other way around. The west tends to exaggerate the capabilities of his weapons. If a Missile has a range of 105 km, they say it´s 100+ km. Or they use data from tests without warhead.

As an example check the declared range of the Storm Shadow/SCALP-EG

KiloGolf wrote:

Hole wrote:"PS. the declared range of western cruise missile systems is always intentionally trimmed down for political reasons."

Well, it´s the other way around. The west tends to exaggerate the capabilities of his weapons. If a Missile has a range of 105 km, they say it´s 100+ km. Or they use data from tests without warhead.

As an example check the declared range of the Storm Shadow/SCALP-EG

Why don't you first back up your claims with links.   The official range of SCALP-EG is 560+ km.   You claim it is much greater.
Prove it.   Hole is right about the token "+" at the end.   It does not mean +100%.

The problem will all those range numbers is from which height and at which speed the weapon was launched.
Like the Kh-58 ARM. Launched from a MiG-25BM from 20.000 metres and M2,8 it got a range of 250 km. Launched from a Su-25SM3 it´s range will be much smaller, more like 60 - 100 km.

NATO has no wunderwaffe. It likes to think it does, but it does not.

In fact, NATO has serious issues. The Zumwalt and the new UK aircraft carrier propulsion problems are an example.

kvs wrote:

KiloGolf wrote:

Hole wrote:"PS. the declared range of western cruise missile systems is always intentionally trimmed down for political reasons."

Well, it´s the other way around. The west tends to exaggerate the capabilities of his weapons. If a Missile has a range of 105 km, they say it´s 100+ km. Or they use data from tests without warhead.

As an example check the declared range of the Storm Shadow/SCALP-EG

Why don't you first back up your claims with links.   The official range of SCALP-EG is 560+ km.   You claim it is much greater.
Prove it.   Hole is right about the token "+" at the end.   It does not mean +100%.

Stand off weapons are made to make the lunch aircraft stay out of range of air defence systems. S-300 are 300km class range so 300 km is the minimal range that nato missiles have to have. 400 or 450or 650 km won't change anything. They will still be in range of sukhois unless they have 2000 km missiles.

Range is less important than ability to defeat pantsir and tors for nato missiles while russian cruise missiles will be very effective against nato as they don't have true air defences. Fighters are really bad at defending air space against low observable and low flying cruise missiles.

Talking about range BTW most of nato experts give export russian caracteristics for russian missiles. An oniks is 300km for export and more than 600km for domestic for exemple.

MOSCOW, April 2. /TASS/. The Caspian flotilla will be transferred from Astrakhan to Kaspiysk, in Dagestan, Defense Minister Sergey Shoigu has said.

"A decision has been made to move the Caspian flotilla to Kaspiysk. Vast construction work is beginning there: piers, logistic facilities and housing. The number of our officers and other personnel will increase manifold," Shoigu said at a conference of senior Defense Ministry officials on Monday.

More:
http://tass.com/defense/997220

Isos wrote:

kvs wrote:

KiloGolf wrote:

Hole wrote:"PS. the declared range of western cruise missile systems is always intentionally trimmed down for political reasons."

Well, it´s the other way around. The west tends to exaggerate the capabilities of his weapons. If a Missile has a range of 105 km, they say it´s 100+ km. Or they use data from tests without warhead.

As an example check the declared range of the Storm Shadow/SCALP-EG

Why don't you first back up your claims with links.   The official range of SCALP-EG is 560+ km.   You claim it is much greater.
Prove it.   Hole is right about the token "+" at the end.   It does not mean +100%.

Stand off weapons are made to make the lunch aircraft stay out of range of air defence systems. S-300 are 300km class range so 300 km is the minimal range that nato missiles have to have. 400 or 450or 650 km won't change anything. They will still be in range of sukhois unless they have 2000 km missiles.

Range is less important than ability to defeat pantsir and tors for nato missiles while russian cruise missiles will be very effective against nato as they don't have true air defences. Fighters are really bad at defending air space against low observable and low flying cruise missiles.

Talking about range BTW most of nato experts give export russian caracteristics for russian missiles. An oniks is 300km for export and more than 600km for domestic for exemple.

S-300 has much smaller range, say 100km+ against aircraft, and much less for missiles. S-400/500 has different missiles with bigger range, but they are not shipborne at the moment. I have doubts that Onyx can fly more than 600km, they have not so much fuel, as they are air-breathing ramjet, not rocket propelled. I don`t know about Scalp, their production is very slow.

S-300 has much smaller range, say 100km+ against aircraft, and much less for missiles. S-400/500 has different missiles with bigger range, but they are not shipborne at the moment. I have doubts that Onyx can fly more than 600km, they have not so much fuel, as they are air-breathing ramjet, not rocket propelled. I don`t know about Scalp, their production is very slow.

S-300 radars have at least 300km detection range so they can coordonate an attack by interceptors or small buk or pantsir system to attack te threat.

There was an article not long ago that was saying Brahmos or Oniks I don't remember could be upgraded to 1000km.

Scalp is a a normal cruise missile with stealth capabilities like all the other new cruise missiles produced ( Kh-59MK2, Taurus, US ones, ...). The thing is that Russia is better equiped to deal with them (tors and pantsir and IADS) than NATO is.

walle83 wrote:
Just like Kirovs cruisers this Soviet killer is just a wounderfull sight, but in reality it belongs in the past and not in the modern Russian navy. Scrap it and spend the money on something better.

Oh yess ofcourse the most capable surface warships Russia has should be disgarded in faver of missile boats with no long range SAMs.

Next you are going to say that Russia should abandon the 2S7m Malka or the Typlpan.

The-thing-next-door wrote:

walle83 wrote:
Just like Kirovs cruisers this Soviet killer is just a wounderfull sight, but in reality it belongs in the past and not in the modern Russian navy. Scrap it and spend the money on something better.

Oh yess ofcourse the most capable surface warships Russia has should be disgarded in faver of missile boats with no long range SAMs.

Next you are going to say that Russia should abandon the 2S7m Malka or the Typlpan.

Typhoons are gone since long time ago. They can't keep one of them while they are getting boreis. Operational cost and repair cost would be huge because all the other are gone and the backbone of ssbn is the borei.

Kirov have no counterpart. They need big ships so they keep them. If they have produced liders and had 4 or 5 in service they wouldn't have upgraded the kirovs.

The serial production is meant to reduce cost because you buy for many ships the same thing and the production is easier because it is always the same work. Kirovs can't be replace so they keep them which is smarter than buying new cruisers while they are replacing small boats and frigates.

The-thing-next-door wrote:

walle83 wrote:
Just like Kirovs cruisers this Soviet killer is just a wounderfull sight, but in reality it belongs in the past and not in the modern Russian navy. Scrap it and spend the money on something better.

Oh yess ofcourse the most capable surface warships Russia has should be disgarded in faver of missile boats with no long range SAMs.

Next you are going to say that Russia should abandon the 2S7m Malka or the Typlpan.

Who is talking about missile boats? How many Admiral Gorshkov-class frigates do u think u will get for the cost of one Kirov for exampel?

walle83 wrote:Who is talking about missile boats? How many Admiral Gorshkov-class frigates do u think u will get for the cost of one Kirov for exampel?

None becuase you don't need to pay for something you already have.

Modernization of Kirov cruisers would cost more than 0,5 bn, for the first ship even more. For that money Russia can get brand new Lider heavy destroyer.

verkhoturye51 wrote:Modernization of Kirov cruisers would cost more than 0,5 bn, for the first ship even more. For that money Russia can get brand new Lider heavy destroyer.

Not untill the Russian ship building industry has recovered and the naval version of the S-500 is ready.

And you do realise don't you that the Leader class would not be very far a step up from a modernized Orlan class.

And you do realise don't you that the Leader class would not be very far a step up from a modernized Orlan class.

Are you serious ? It will be a new stealthier design with new nuclear reactors, all new radars with new weapons and a battle management system made specialky for all this.

Kirov are very good but they are old. A modernization can't bring it to the level of a modern cruiser build by the same country and the same shipyard.

Pointless discussion since 2 well be modernized and 2 will be scraped, decision has been made long ago and process has underway for years.

Can we go back to talking about nuke subs now? Any rumors about more Yasens being ordered or am I just daydreaming? Would be sweet If they ordered more, 3 years until first Husky is lots of downtime...

0,5 bn invested in Kirov can prolong its lifespan for another decade, while with the some amount of money invested in Lider Russia accrues a destroyer good for next 30 - 40 years.

Soviet era equipment is nice to look at and should have a place in museums, however military should get brand new cutting edge tech. Old equipment will be gradually substituted with new, so that Russian army has only post 1991 equipment by 2030. Romantic emotions don't mix well with real time geopolitical needs, which are significantly smaller and more defensive today than in Soviet times. Russia needs plenty of new destroyers for defense of its long coastline and not large ships for patrolling world oceans.

Besides, Russian shipyards have progressed enormously during first ten year state arnament program and will continue to do so, starting production of Priboy in 2020 and Lider in 2026.

0,5 bn invested in Kirov can prolong its lifespan for another decade, while with the some amount of money invested in Lider Russia accrues a destroyer good for next 30 - 40 years.

With 500 million $ you will have only 1/3 of the Lider ...

And it is not enough for a real modernization of a Kirov like russian wants. But it is still cheaper than a new lider.

If you don't bring real numbers and base your ideas on numbers you just invented, just stop talking it's bullshit.

In one vs one there is no ship that could fight a kirov enven not modernized. A modernized one with s400 and uksk is just amazing and way better than any surface ship.

Isos wrote:Are you serious ? It will be a new stealthier design

Ohh would it have a designer label too or how about Putins signiture or other useless novelties.

Installing an onboard casino would offer more advantage than stealth.

Here come arguments.

Price of Kirov and Lider are about the same, i.e. about 1 bn (and not 0,5 bn like I previously claimed). Source: https://russiandefpolicy.blog/2015/07/21/for-nakhimovs-price/

Old cruiser vs new destroyer, who wins: http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/russias-super-battlecruiser-kirov-vs-americas-stealth-19211

Finally: yes, Kirovs are very capable ships for fight against US carrier strike groups even today, but Liders are even better. So after modernising Pyotr and Nakhimov, it's better to leave Ushakov and Lazarev to rust in peace, rather than risking danger starting their nuclear reactors, that are in bad shape. See also: https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/ddg-newcon-design.htm

verkhoturye51 wrote:..... So after modernising Pyotr and Nakhimov, it's better to leave Ushakov and Lazarev to rust in peace, ....

Which is precisely what they are doing

verkhoturye51 wrote:Here come arguments.

Price of Kirov and Lider are about the same, i.e. about 1 bn (and not 0,5 bn like I previously claimed). Source: https://russiandefpolicy.blog/2015/07/21/for-nakhimovs-price/

Old cruiser vs new destroyer, who wins: http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/russias-super-battlecruiser-kirov-vs-americas-stealth-19211

Finally: yes, Kirovs are very capable ships for fight against US carrier strike groups even today, but Liders are even better. So after modernising Pyotr and Nakhimov, it's better to leave Ushakov and Lazarev to rust in peace, rather than risking danger starting their nuclear reactors, that are in bad shape. See also: https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/ddg-newcon-design.htm

I have to understand why everyone consider it as "easy" task to kill the granit/onix missiles with SAMs.

C'mon, it is easier to kill the zumwalt guided artillery shells than to kill the granit .