Russia's naval doctrine and strategy

Take a look at South Front  "Review" of Russia surface navy..
their channel have turned into full dooom and gloom propaganda ,throwing
a very dark picture for Russia navy ,even with all the advances they have done..

The core of his IDIOTIC logic ,seems to be,that if Russia don't match American
Aircraft carrier and Destroyers numbers.. that they are out of hope to project power
outside Russia borders..  

if Russia wanted to project power lets say in the atlantic.. they can very
get for free a military naval base in Cuba and Venenzuela and from there their their Airforce like
Migs-31 and long range bombers ,armed with Hypersonic missiles ,they can terrorize
any NATO battle field group , since they have no capabilities to intercept hypersonic missiles
,even they say that.. and just one Kinzhal hypersonic missile is enough to erase from the map
an 1-3 Aircraft carrier group with a hundreds of warships ,including destroyers , near the strike
zone..



Also Russia can do a preventive surprise strike too ,near US eastern Coast.. in time of "peace" , before the war start.. if they feel the war can't be avoided.. So a decapitation strike with a hypersonic missile
on washington DC.. is completely possible in technical terms ..if Russia wanted to have that option on the table.. And positioning in place many Bombers with Hypersonic missiles.. including submarines positioning , if for example the location of most US Ohio subs is known ..can make the difference between a fast Victory of Russia ,before the enemy organize for a retaliation.

Is not my coincidence that Rand Corporation ,the major experts that Pentagon request help to
simulate wars vs RUssia and CHINA... in all their simulation ,they show US losing that war..
Long RAnge tactical strike Airfoce is where Russia needs to invest more.. Those TU-160s and bombers and backfires ,and mig 31 needs all to be modernized and be able to fire hypersonic missiles.and this will provide Russia with a very serious deterrence against NATO .. combine this
with Russia electromagnetic weapons to destroy NATO satellites in space and it will be a very
convincing deterrence to NOT start a major war against Russia ,not anywhere in the short ,medium or long future.. Contrary to South Front Doom and Gloom analizing ,Russia today have the capabilities to Win in a fight vs NATO in any part of the world.. if use their airforce wisely and the correct weapons..

Russia needs to open a base in Cuba with at least 100 planes and a dozen of them armed with
hypersonic missiles.. and do routine , patrols along the US eastern Coast.. that will scare the shit
of them.. knowing Russia can strike them with a nuke  in 2-3 minutes hit their decision centers and they can't stop it . and only thing can do is retaliate.. this will force US navy to mobilize more closer to US borders to follow very closely any Russian plane ..near their borders.

A lot of the points they make about Russia's issues are in fact accurate, In the end, if they need to match the US navy ship for ship is a personal view nothing more.

That said I thought they were already building the Lider! Enhie lied to me!.

SeigSoloyvov wrote:A lot of the points they make about Russia's issues are in fact accurate, In the end, if they need to match the US navy ship for ship is a personal view nothing more.

That said I thought they were already building the Lider! Enhie lied to me!.

Lider is still in the plan, if Russia isn't gonna make carriers, then the other plan is to make Cruisers for Carrier Denial.
The question isn't "if" it's "when".
News of the Borei-K show that Lider might not be constructed anytime soon.

"When" depends also on tge size of the Lider. Something similar in size to Kirivs isn't going to happen any day soon.

I don't know why people quote Southfront as some sort of authoritative source, they're Westerners using open sources & frequently have translation errors that implies use of Google translate & not great ability to read between the lines of its limitations.

That said the basic thesis there is not wrong: Official plan calls for multiple blue-water CV groups but they're still nowhere near having an adequate new force to defend near-coastal regions.
IMO first priority should be completing 6-ship squadrons of frigates, SSKs, ASW corvettes, minesweepers & missile boats for each main fleet as a basic minimum.
Thats no small ask, its 120 ships...

I love how they made Khabarovsk smaller in this diagram than Lada-class even though it's a modified Borei SSBN... lol1

Good spotting
My guess he got confused with Losharik?

hoom wrote:I don't know why people quote Southfront as some sort of authoritative source, they're Westerners using open sources & frequently have translation errors that implies use of Google translate & not great ability to read between the lines of its limitations...

They are also right wing nationalists so anything that isn't​ UBER EXTREME is not good enough in their book

isn't the main point of that great diagram re Navy fleet …. which ones are Kalibr cruise missile armed ? with the red "C"
the Russian Navy strategy seems pretty obvious to me

especially considering the bullshit INF Treaty only restricts land-based missiles …
shows me the real reason the USA is spewing about the INF … it restricted Russia 10x more than NATO ….
as Russia didn't have sea launch capability of NATO …. until now

the chessmaster … at it again methinks

Ships under construction for Russia. Not that bad actually.

Isos wrote:Ships under construction for Russia. Not that bad actually.

And this are "only" the armed ships. There are a lot of support ships of all sizes/flavors being built.

Isos wrote:Ships under construction for Russia. Not that bad actually.

It is actually quite bad as most of them are backlogged waiting for engines and or funds for completion.

Vladimir79 wrote:

Isos wrote:Ships under construction for Russia. Not that bad actually.

It is actually quite bad as most of them are backlogged waiting for engines and or funds for completion.

That's good actually for you. Before you were totally dependant on germany and ukraine for engines. Now you will be able to make your ships 100% russian.

The past 5 years were hard for RuN but that's the past. On the other hand german and ukrainian compabies lost a big client.

Since you have all those ships waiting for engine that will oblige you companies to work hard to make engines and once they make them your navy will get all the ships you see here in one time which will drasticaly boost your power.

Isos wrote:

Vladimir79 wrote:

Isos wrote:Ships under construction for Russia. Not that bad actually.

It is actually quite bad as most of them are backlogged waiting for engines and or funds for completion.

That's good actually for you. Before you were totally dependant on germany and ukraine for engines.....

Unless you miss USSR, in that case nothing will ever be good enough

Vladimir79 wrote:

Isos wrote:Ships under construction for Russia. Not that bad actually.

It is actually quite bad as most of them are backlogged waiting for engines and or funds for completion.

Which ones besides Karakurts and Buyans?

Isos wrote:
That's good actually for you. Before you were totally dependant on germany and ukraine for engines. Now you will be able to make your ships 100% russian.

The past 5 years were hard for RuN but that's the past. On the other hand german and ukrainian compabies lost a big client.

Since you have all those ships waiting for engine that will oblige you companies to work hard to make engines and once they make them your navy will get all the ships you see here in one time which will drasticaly boost your power.

How is it good for me to have a fleet of vessels rusting away at the wharf? How is it good for the ships to run under-powered engines that do not meet the needs of the Navy if and when they get them?

The loss of Ukraine from the MIC should have been factored beforehand. To design these ships with German MTUs in mind was crazy. Did they really think they would maintain technical cooperation with us?

Yes, we should crack the whip and tell these people to stop wasting our money. I am just glad the state no longer rewards incompetence and laziness with payments.

By you I mean Russia. Don't take it personnaly

That's why I say it is good. It will just oblige your MIC to produce everything from now by themselve at good standards. If they don't ships will die at port so MOD will pressure them to finish.

First engines won't meet requirements but second generation will and then you will be totally independant.

It's a big investement thanks to US sanctions. If you were not sanctioned and not obliged to design your own engines, you will be still buying german and your domestic projects would be done slowly and probably be stoped before completetion.

Isos wrote:By you I mean Russia. Don't take it personnaly

That's why I say it is good. It will just oblige your MIC to produce everything from now by themselve at good standards. If they don't ships will die at port so MOD will pressure them to finish.

First engines won't meet requirements but second generation will and then you will be totally independant.

It's a big investement thanks to US sanctions. If you were not sanctioned and not obliged to design your own engines, you will be still buying german and your domestic projects would be done slowly and probably be stoped before completetion.

He isn't even in Russia.....

miketheterrible wrote:
He isn't even in Russia.....

... and yet I still pay taxes to it.

Isos wrote:By you I mean Russia. Don't take it personnaly

That's why I say it is good. It will just oblige your MIC to produce everything from now by themselve at good standards. If they don't ships will die at port so MOD will pressure them to finish.

First engines won't meet requirements but second generation will and then you will be totally independant.

It's a big investement thanks to US sanctions. If you were not sanctioned and not obliged to design your own engines, you will be still buying german and your domestic projects would be done slowly and probably be stoped before completetion.

The fleet structure and industrial policy is completely wrong.  We should have invested everything into a long line of 22350s, 24 in total to form the basis of the surface fleet.  Corvettes with high end weapons are a waste of tonnage and expense that cannot project power in blue water.  They should be centered around two nuclear carriers with the full capabilities of CATOBAR and 6 LPHs to project naval infantry.  Let the FSB patrol the EEZ and invest in a blue water navy. We have so many projects of corvettes it is just a waste of resources.  We need commonality among the fleet to make logistics and servicing easier and cheaper. Have one corvette, one frigate, one LPH and one carrier class... with everything we have spent maintaining the old, we could have built all of this new.

Vladimir79 wrote:..... We should have invested everything into a long line of 22350s,

You did... and then bet the bank on Ukrainian loyalty.

Lord Darwin has no favorites.

Vladimir79 wrote:.....Corvettes with high end weapons are a waste of tonnage and expense that cannot project power in blue water.  

And what would you do once you are in that precious blue water?

There is no more ideology to enforce, no more clients (ungrateful ones I might add) to protect, no trade lanes you use that need controlling and no resources you don't have at home already.

All your enemies are are right next door in Europe and maybe (big maybe) across Sea of Japan. And none of them require blue water navy to deal with.

Vladimir79 wrote:.....They should be centered around two nuclear carriers with the full capabilities of CATOBAR

USSR at the apex of it's might could not come close to having even a single nuclear carrier even with that insane suicidal military budget.

They could barely build and operate helicopter carriers.

How on Earth do you expect Russia to have one especially on a budget not compiled by by geriatric commies with 8 years of elementary school? And I mean that as a compliment. Remember what killed USSR?

Vladimir79 wrote:.....Let the FSB patrol the EEZ and invest in a blue water navy.

Russia is not USA, you are not flanked by two oceans and not bordered by two glorified provinces.

Having Coast Guard (FSB) patrol EEZ is a luxury that USA has but you don't, never had and never will.

Vladimir79 wrote:.....We have so many projects of corvettes it is just a waste of resources.  

Corvettes is what you can build and more importantly what you need.

And even that is a stretch.

All this hassle with building corvettes and people want carriers?

It's like wanting to have a Lamborghini when you can barely pay for and build a tricycle. All the while living next to dirt road...

Vladimir79 wrote:..... with everything we have spent maintaining the old, we could have built all of this new.

No you couldn't.

Navy was swimming in cash until recently and all they managed to build were those hated corvettes.

No matter how much money you dump on carriers you will always be 3rd rate in that department, that is if you don't bankrupt yourselves (again) first.

And even if you build one (fat chance) what will you use it for? Fly airplanes around potential hostiles which are all within range of land based aviation?

More money down the latrine...

The fleet structure and industrial policy is completely wrong.  We should have invested everything into a long line of 22350s, 24 in total to form the basis of the surface fleet.  Corvettes with high end weapons are a waste of tonnage and expense that cannot project power in blue water.  They should be centered around two nuclear carriers with the full capabilities of CATOBAR and 6 LPHs to project naval infantry.  Let the FSB patrol the EEZ and invest in a blue water navy. We have so many projects of corvettes it is just a waste of resources.  We need commonality among the fleet to make logistics and servicing easier and cheaper. Have one corvette, one frigate, one LPH and one carrier class... with everything we have spent maintaining the old, we could have built all of this new.

Well this totally depends on what Russia plans to do in the next century. Having such navy means you want to invade countries.

Military speaking Russia doesn't even need a navy since they have 5000 nuks, neither an army. No one will dare to attack them (specially if the only weapons you have are your nuks).

Russia send 4 su-35 and 12 su-24 and 2 corvettes in Syria before NATO send anything and the world knew Assad was the winner the next day.

The thing is that with the 4 su-35, 12 su-24 and 2 corvettes they can still destroy the world. As long as this is true Russia won't need a huge navy.

But if you want to control Africa and some south american countries, then you need carriers and 24 Gorshkovs. But USA will always have more money and more military tools to make that almost impossible. Like in Venezuela for exemple.

Edit: 4 smaller nuclear carrier would improve such navy rather than only two. With your shipbuilding slow repairs you can bet that both would end up in drydock for a long time togather. With 4 of them you can always have one ready and at sea 1 can cover the other one and if ones is destroyed you have the second one. Supercarrier are divas nothing more.

PapaDragon wrote:

You did... and then bet the bank on Ukrainian loyalty.

Lord Darwin has no favorites.

No we didn't.  The BFS and Caspian commanders were whining about the state of their fleet so in order to reequip them money was diverted to corvette projects.  The biggest drain on resources was on the nuclear deterrence but that had to be paid for, corvettes did not.  

There is no more ideology to enforce, no more clients (ungrateful ones I might add) to protect, no trade lanes you use that need controlling and no resources you don't have at home already.

All your enemies are are right next door in Europe and maybe (big maybe) across Sea of Japan. And none of them require blue water navy to deal with.

And yet we are in Venezuela, Syria, Vietnam... ect.  We must be able to keep the sea lanes open if war breaks out.  Corvettes will not do.

Attack is the secret of defence; defence is the planning of an attack. - Sun Tzu

USSR at the apex of it's might could not come close to having even a single nuclear carrier even with that insane suicidal military budget.

They could barely build and operate helicopter carriers.

How on Earth do you expect Russia to have one especially on a budget not compiled by by geriatric commies with 8 years of elementary school? And I mean that as a compliment. Remember what killed USSR?

The only thing preventing us is lack of shipyards to build it.  We have the nuclear propulsion to run it and the fighters to fill it.  Developing a steam catapult is child's play.  If the funding had been devoted to it we would already have one with the second on the way.  The Soviet naval doctrine was having a fleet of nuclear subs and surface ships were only there to protect them.  It was a complete defence doctrine that is still being applied today but now it is centered on corvettes and very few submarines.  With the addition of cruise missiles we finally have a capability to project force from the sea but we don't have a naval doctrine that takes advantage of that.    

Russia is not USA, you are not flanked by two oceans and not bordered by two glorified provinces.

Having Coast Guard (FSB) patrol EEZ is a luxury that USA has but you don't, never had and never will.

Russia is closer to France, they have a blue water navy and a huge EEZ, bigger than ours actually.  We should have what they have times two.  

Corvettes is what you can build and more importantly what you need.

And even that is a stretch.

All this hassle with building corvettes and people want carriers?

It's like wanting to have a Lamborghini when you can barely pay for and build a tricycle. All the while living next to dirt road...

What is a corvette to a NATO carrier strike group?  Target practice...

No you couldn't.

Navy was swimming in cash until recently and all they managed to build were those hated corvettes.

No matter how much money you dump on carriers you will always be 3rd rate in that department, that is if you don't bankrupt yourselves (again) first.

And even if you build one (fat chance) what will you use it for? Fly airplanes around potential hostiles which are all within range of land based aviation?

More money down the latrine...

The capital expenditure maintaining the legacy fleet that should have been replaced with the state armaments plan is the cost of everything I stated, including the two carriers.  If the industrial policy had focused on one design per class, and spent the money perfecting that design with commonality, the shipyards would have been cranking out ships left and right.  The money down the latrine was keeping that old junk in service and not having commonality for new ships that should have had Russian designed engines from the start.

And yet we are in Venezuela, Syria, Vietnam... ect.  We must be able to keep the sea lanes open if war breaks out.

Why ? What are you selling to them apart some few sukhois and corvettes ?

For rebuilding Syria, Assad will go for Chinese companies.

Vietnam is totally forgeting Vietnam war and because of the fear of China, opening his arms to US. Just like indians.

Venezuela won't have a decent economy before 20 or 30 years. Just like Cuba is destroyed because of western sanctions since 50 years. Will be the same for Venezuela. China is doing nothing to stop that neither is russia.

US destroyed Ukraine and insted of taking the country back quickly and with no causualties like in Crimea, you keep the war in dombass and destroy this brother country even more and cry in Merkels arms for Minsk agreements.

You want carriers to play US game with no cards in hands.

Isos wrote:

Well this totally depends on what Russia plans to do in the next century. Having such navy means you want to invade countries.

Military speaking Russia doesn't even need a navy since they have 5000 nuks, neither an army. No one will dare to attack them (specially if the only weapons you have are your nuks).

Russia send 4 su-35 and 12 su-24 and 2 corvettes in Syria before NATO send anything and the world knew Assad was the winner the next day.

The thing is that with the 4 su-35, 12 su-24 and 2 corvettes they can still destroy the world. As long as this is true Russia won't need a huge navy.

But if you want to control Africa and some south american countries, then you need carriers and 24 Gorshkovs. But USA will always have more money and more military tools to make that almost impossible. Like in Venezuela for exemple.

What is the point of having a Navy if not to project your power whenever and wherever it is needed?  If we just want a littoral deterrence for US carriers we can do that with land based aviation.  It makes all of these overpriced corvettes redundant.  A quality MALE UAV fleet can provide maritime observation 24/7 and a much cheaper FSB fleet to enforce the EEZ.  If there is a heavily armed maritime threat you just bomb them out of existence.

Did those corvettes do anything to help Assad win?  No... it was a Slava cruiser that provided air cover to keep NATO at bay.  Now the Moskva is no longer serviceable.  

The USA will always have more, does that mean we should hide from them?

The USA will always have more, does that mean we should hide from them?

If you wait that they destroy all your "allies" before waking up then yes you should.

Did Syria paid anything for the war ? No
Did Vietnam paid anything for support during Vietnam war ? No
Did China paid for the copies of sukhois and everything else ? No
Does Iran pays anything for supporting them at UN ? Nope
Did Egypt pay for all Soviet support during wars with Israel ? No they even went to US. And now they buy 24 rafales for 5 billion and 50 migs for not even half the price.

US are not a bigger threat to you than China and the parasites that pretend to be your allies.

US is 1st because it controls its own parasites very well with their "military alliances". You should try that too. That's why smaller carrier with corvettes are enough, it keeps US away and you can destroy you allies if they try to fuck you. And most important make them pay for the carrier and the blue water navy. That's how it works. Even your LHD could have been paid by France and Egypt if you asked penalities from Paris and asked for a couple of billions more for the ka-52 by saying like the americans it is the best helicopter in the world. But you don't. Russians are passive.

Did those corvettes do anything to help Assad win?  No... it was a Slava cruiser that provided air cover to keep NATO at bay.  Now the Moskva is no longer serviceable.  

No it was Hmeimim air base. Slava is old and its S-300 are old ones with less than 100km range. Totally useless against stand off attacks from modern jets.

Isos wrote:By you I mean Russia. Don't take it personnaly

That's why I say it is good. It will just oblige your MIC to produce everything from now by themselve at good standards. If they don't ships will die at port so MOD will pressure them to finish.

First engines won't meet requirements but second generation will and then you will be totally independant.

It's a big investement thanks to US sanctions. If you were not sanctioned and not obliged to design your own engines, you will be still buying german and your domestic projects would be done slowly and probably be stoped before completetion.

Yes if you want a Big Navy you have to be able to produce it yourself not rely on others to do so, this goes for all the parts.

Otherwise, you are just asking for well a situation like that happened with Ukraine.


That said funding carriers right now would be a waste, no docks large enough for them, they are being built but not completed.

No Escorts, no anything Russia has a long way to do go before it can sit there and go "Okay NOW we can start to build the CV".

Trying to lay one down right now not that they can, would be a huge waste of money.


Also to say Corvettes are all Russia needs for a surface fleet, just no those corvettes will do jack shit in a naval fight, fighters alone will destroy every single one without much hassle and unless you concentrate a huge sum of them in one area they do not have enough weapons to really threaten anything like a destroyer.

If you cannot power project deep into the sea your foe will use that against you, why do you think Russia is having a hard time unless its right next to them they cannot provide the naval power they need for their interests, Russia wants carriers, it wants Missile Cruisers, it wants frigates but it's having a hard getting all of it. They want these things because they know they NEED them.

Does Russia need a blue water navy like frigates and a few carriers, yes they do. But they cannot afford that right now so they are just getting by with what they can get.