Russia's naval doctrine and strategy

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

You spent last several decades trying to develop technology that makes carriers redundant and now that you finally cracked it you want to go back and build your own redundant carriers?

Just because you got there first doesn't mean USA won't catch up and make yours redundant as well (remember space race?)

And keep in mind that just one carrier with aircraft complement costs more than your entire surface and submarine Navy.

USA spends 2/3 of it's defense budget on Navy. There is a reason for that, Navy is crazy expensive.

And what trade lanes would you be protecting? Almost your entire trade goes via land.

If you really want to have Navy like France (seriously, you have some irrational infatuation with that place) all you have to do is to drop current warship design dogma and buld ships according to commercial standards just like French. Much simpler, cheaper and faster (just look at Bykov class)

France does have exactly same kind of Navy you are advocating: one carrier, several commercial grade frigates as escorts and some cheap chaff for padding. I doubt it would be enough to cover even Ohotsk.

PapaDragon wrote:
You spent last several decades trying to develop technology that makes carriers redundant and now that you finally cracked it you want to go back and build your own redundant carriers?

Just because you got there first doesn't mean USA won't catch up and make yours redundant as well (remember space race?)

And keep in mind that just one carrier with aircraft complement costs more than your entire surface and submarine Navy.

USA spends 2/3 of it's defense budget on Navy. There is a reason for that, Navy is crazy expensive.

And what trade lanes would you be protecting? Almost your entire trade goes via land.

If you really want to have Navy like France (seriously, you have some irrational infatuation with that place) all you have to do is to drop current warship design dogma and buld ships according to commercial standards just like French. Much simpler, cheaper and faster (just look at Bykov class)

France does have exactly same kind of Navy you are advocating: one carrier, several commercial grade frigates as escorts and some cheap chaff for padding. I doubt it would be enough to cover even Ohotsk.

60% of Russian international trade is carried by cargo ships. Over the past 10 years the amount of goods shipped by sea has doubled. If we can't ensure our trading lanes then the entire economy will come to a halt.

The US Navy gets 1/3rd of their budget and that includes the Marines. It isn't about matching the US that has carriers all over the world, it is about having a carrier that can defeat them at the place and time when it is needed before the nuclear watchdogs are called in to calm things down. That is the worst case, the regular case would be having a carrier that can conduct strikes to support our allies when needed and deterring the US from getting involved.

We need something like the French Navy times two. 2 CVNs, 8 AAW DDGs, 24 Gorshkovs, 6 LPH, 12 SSNs, 10 SSBNs. That is a solid first tier navy with plenty of projection power. We have already spent enough money to buy these things, but thanks to poor planning and wasted capital allocation on 40 year old rust buckets we have squat.

Isos wrote:

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

If China is the biggest threat, which they are, how are we going to stop them without carrier strike groups? Have you looked at the PLAN lately?

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.

A smaller carrier and corvettes... how are the corvettes going to protect the carrier? If the carrier doesn't have CATOBAR what good is it anyway?

We got our money back from the Mistral deal, what it was spent on... more corvettes that don't have engines.

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.

Hmeimim air base doesn't move, we needed a mobile air coverage that was provided by Moskva. And what missile do modern jets fire greater than 100km that can hit a moving target?

You need more than two carriers you need enough carrier you can rotate them for repair, upgrades and keeping some active 3 at the bare MIN is what russia in CV's

Vladimir79 wrote:

Up until 2008 you were acting like there will never again be an armed conflict in your future and between 2008 and 2014 you were still expecting everything to be smooth and silky with couple of speed bumps at most.

How would anyone be able to justify expenditures required for development, construction sites, infrastructure and building of carrier navy?

It's amazing you even got around developing corvettes and frigates back then and only reason you were able to slide it in the budget is because they are smaller and cheaper.

This is like when people complain about not intervening in Syria back in 2011 while completely ignoring massive domestic backlash it would create.

In order to justify defense expenditures of that size you need external threat and it didn't exist before 2014.

USA only managed to get defense budget back to Cold War levels once 9/11 happened and they could tell voters and taxpayers that there is an actual reason for it.

Starting with last week you finally see your navy doing intelligent things: continuing Gorshkov program, modifying Grens as proper LHDs and putting Derzkii and Arctic patrol ships back on track.

This is stuff you can get now without breaking the bank and chasing pie in the sky like carriers and nuclear destroyers​.

You can get those after you sort out the existing navy before it rots away.

Vladimir79 wrote:...
If China is the biggest threat, which they are, how are we going to stop them without carrier strike groups? Have you looked at the PLAN lately?

In what fictional universe is China bigger threat than USA and/or Europe?

You have collection of clowns in Europe who are actively working on taking you all out even without USA in the mix and somehow China is the problem?

If China wanted to do anything about Russia last thing they would be wasting money on would be Navy, ships don't matter in conflicts between two nuclear nations on the same continent.

If you are so hell bent on going to war with China then you better invest in Army with loads of intermediate range missiles and not in some redundant ego boats because for both of you navy will not be doing squat in that situation.

Chinese population is jam packed on the coast and infrastructure is insanely interdependent and sensitive. Several missiles in the power grid and traffic system and whole place will be back to stone age with a dash of Black Death once cholera sets in and societal collapse when food and water go tits up.

Vladimir79 wrote:...A smaller carrier and corvettes... how are the corvettes going to protect the carrier?

They won't. Their job it to go after submarines AKA main naval threat Russia is facing and which has to be monitored.

Vladimir79 wrote:...Hmeimim air base doesn't move, we needed a mobile air coverage that was provided by Moskva. And what missile do modern jets fire greater than 100km that can hit a moving target?

Plenty of missiles do, both​ aerial and land based. And calling Moskva moving target is bit generous in modern environment.

If Turks wanted to sink Moskva they would have. Nobody is afraid of some overbloathed obsolete rust bucket you keep around to remember the good old days, they are afraid of your airforce, land based missiles and nukes and what it would do to their population.

We didn't tap out in 99 because we were afraid of American fleet or cruise missiles, we did it because we didn't want them to make good on the promise to carpet bomb our population centers with strategic aviation (promise delivered in no uncertain terms by Finnish emissary, look it up)

They were already carpet bombing areas with suspected military targets, Vietnam style. Didn't hit anything but you can't hide cities.

Fleet is a joke. Any fleet. That is if you aren't Afghan level cave man.

PapaDragon wrote:Up until 2008 you were acting like there will never again be an armed conflict in your future and between 2008 and 2014 you were still expecting everything to be smooth and silky with couple of speed bumps at most.

How would anyone be able to justify expenditures required for development, construction sites, infrastructure and building of carrier navy?

How did the French justify the infrastructure for building carriers?  They also use it to build cruise ships, LNG carriers and offshore oil platforms.  We could use it to build the last two and large cargo ships.

Plenty of missiles do, both​ aerial and land based. And calling Moskva moving target is bit generous in modern environment.

Name one with 100km+ range.

Vladimir79 wrote:...Name one with 100km+ range.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harpoon_(missile)


To say that Moskva would have been way out of her league on her own would be epic understatement

And this is just one

Vladimir79 wrote:...How did the French justify the infrastructure for building carriers?

Easy, they have you

PapaDragon wrote:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harpoon_(missile)

To say that Moskva would have been way out of her league on her own would be epic understatement

And this is just one

The air launched version has 90km range, the Exocet even less.

...How did the French justify the infrastructure for building carriers?

Easy, they have you

Disrespect will not be tolerated.  Enjoy your time out.

If your gonna temporarily ban somebody for trash talking, you better start banning more than half this forum. This is unprofessional.

Tingsay wrote:If your gonna temporarily ban somebody for trash talking, you better start banning more than half this forum. This is unprofessional.

I have already had 3 perm bans and 5 temp bans this month.  Just because you don't always see it doesn't mean it isn't happening. Read my announcement, I wasn't joking.

Vladimir79 wrote:

PapaDragon wrote:Up until 2008 you were acting like there will never again be an armed conflict in your future and between 2008 and 2014 you were still expecting everything to be smooth and silky with couple of speed bumps at most.

How would anyone be able to justify expenditures required for development, construction sites, infrastructure and building of carrier navy?

How did the French justify the infrastructure for building carriers?  They also use it to build cruise ships, LNG carriers and offshore oil platforms.  We could use it to build the last two and large cargo ships.

Plenty of missiles do, both​ aerial and land based. And calling Moskva moving target is bit generous in modern environment.

Name one with 100km+ range.

Easy, our standard service one.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otomat

Introduced in 1978 , had 180km range then, now exceed 250km.

About your own tirade on Corvettes, what exactly you refer to?

Steregushchy have an hely hangar, so they would be better considered light frigates than just plain corvettes, they are located most in Baltic and Pacific, for Northern fleet i.e. for blue sea roles they would acquire Derzky/Merkuriy instead, that with a 3400 announced tonnage would be at same level of Cold war era standard frigates.
Buyan_M were for Caspian flottilla missile boats and were called corvettes only when they were enlarged with USKS installation, they ordered some for Baltic also but now they are ordering more sea Worthy Karakurt instead.

All in all they are just the right size for Baltic/Black Sea/Caspian fleets, maybe just a little smaller for Pacific.

No one is scheduled instead to operate with the Northern one, so IMHO no big fuss about them.

marcellogo wrote:

Easy, our standard service one.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otomat

Not so easy when the criteria is air-launched from a Western fighter.

Vladimir79 wrote:

marcellogo wrote:

Easy, our standard service one.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otomat

Not so easy when the criteria is air-launched from a Western fighter.

Original quote was air and sea launched.
So we have made half of the work, blame the rest to lack of support from our supposed partners.

The air launched version has 90km range, the Exocet even less.

Have you heard of something called radar horizon ? Moskva won't see the fighter more than 50km away if it flies low.

Aircraft will always be superior to ships. That's why ships should have air defence specially made for use against swarme missile attacks.

Anyway the conversation was about engines. I stop here.

Nothing is more important for Russia if Russia want to be global power then ocean going navy. And only if you become global power countries will chose you for "protector" and then fruits of economic, politic, science etc cooperation will come to Russia.

Being global power means that you have allies around the world like USA have. And why would any country chose Russia for its protector if Russia cannot protect them? To protect allies you need to be near them, and to have open sea lines.

That's why Russia now have strong naval forces in Mediterranean see. Tomorrow you could enter Jemen or Libya, or some other conflict way you have entered in Syria and start to building your naval presence and bases around the globe.

When you will become global naval power then countries will approach to you, and you will not need conflict to find new allies.

You need ocean going navy and bases to be capable to protect new allies.

At this moment Russia almost have no allies at all.

When you will have allies then economic politic and science cooperation with that country will be increased.

Take Serbia as example, what Russia could offer to us? Protection? No we know you will not protect us. Economy? Just oil and gas, but we could by it from others. But you are still main member of UN. And that is main reason why Serbia want to be near Russia, and voila, we have sell our oil industry to you, we have engaged your companies and banks to finance and repair our railroads, we didn't joined any sanctions against you. We are buying some weapons from you. We are piss poor country but jet you have some fruits from having us as ally.

Just look China France GB and USA, do you really think that they are stupid but jet rich and powerful?

marcellogo wrote:

Original quote was air and sea launched.
So we have made half of the work, blame the rest to lack of support from our supposed partners.

The original quote I was responding to was "Slava is old and its S-300 are old ones with less than 100km range. Totally useless against stand off attacks from modern jets."

...nothing about sea launched.

Isos wrote:Have you heard of something called radar horizon ? Moskva won't see the fighter more than 50km away if it flies low.

Aircraft will always be superior to ships. That's why ships should have air defence specially made for use against swarme missile attacks.

Anyway the conversation was about engines. I stop here.

In order for the fighter to lock her it would have to fly high enough that the Moskva would see it.  It goes both ways.  The Moskva is not defenceless against such attacks anyways.

Vladimir79 wrote:

Isos wrote:Have you heard of something called radar horizon ? Moskva won't see the fighter more than 50km away if it flies low.

Aircraft will always be superior to ships. That's why ships should have air defence specially made for use against swarme missile attacks.

Anyway the conversation was about engines. I stop here.

In order for the fighter to lock her it would have to fly high enough that the Moskva would see it.  It goes both ways.  The Moskva is not defenceless against such attacks anyways.

That could be done by another aircraft from bigger distance far away from reach of S300, and in same time attacking aircrafts could be under radar horizont and safe.

marat wrote:

That could be done by another aircraft  from bigger distance far away from reach of S300, and in same time attacking aircrafts could be under radar horizont and safe.

And another ship or aircraft could relay data to the Moskva, it goes both ways.

Vladimir79 wrote:

marat wrote:

That could be done by another aircraft  from bigger distance far away from reach of S300, and in same time attacking aircrafts could be under radar horizont and safe.

And another ship or aircraft could relay data to the Moskva, it goes both ways.  

Could S 300 be guided via proxy? Or Moskva would have to guide them? For ASM just location of Moskva should be send.

I think the point is that it is not so easy.

On paper the Exocet should not have been any where near as successful as it was in the Falklands war... both the Sea Dart and the Sea Wolf should have been perfectly capable of shooting them down in numbers, but for various reasons they failed to be 100% effective.

BTW the Moskva... if she wanted to, could carry a Ka-31 as one of her helicopters and therefore have excellent over the horizon detection of aircraft and surface ships via radar.

The S-300 system is a vertical launch system... if you cut that out of the deck you should be able to fit rather a lot of vertical SAM launchers in its place because the original system had a lot of internal space so the missile tubes could be accessed from beneath deck and also clusters of them rotated into position beneath a launch hatch. Those mechanisms and all that free space is redundant with the new missiles so you could pack a lot more launch tubes in the available space.

The main problem with the upgrade of the Slava class ships is that the main armament is angled and external so standard UKSK launchers which are vertical and installed under the deck would be an issue... except on the roe.ru web page it mentions the launchers in question can be angled or vertical and can have any number of launch tubes from 2, 4, 6, or 8 missiles either fixed angled or elevating... it can launch the standard Club missiles including the Calibr land attack missile and the Club subsonic anti ship missile and the combined subsonic supersonic Club anti ship missile too.

Here is the export page for it:

http://roe.ru/eng/catalog/naval-systems/shipborne-weapons/klab-u/

Just replacing the Vulcan missiles with Calibrs or Clubs, and the Rif missiles with modern S-350s would seriously improve performance without much modification at all.

Of course it makes sense to replace the electronics anyway... just for the new systems being so much more superior.... otherwise the single gun turret 30mm weapons could be replaced with Duets and improved radars and EO systems, and of course the short range missile Klintok can be replaced with new model TOR missiles (twice as many in the same space with much better range, ceiling, and accuracy).

Would probably replace the old gun with a 152mm gun turret... getting these things in to service in an upgrade would be much quicker than waiting for new builds, but would not be too expensive and offer serious performance improvements and large boat capabilities that the frigates and corvettes built so far just can't manage... no matter how impressive their armament is.

Could S 300 be guided via proxy? Or Moskva would have to guide them? For ASM just location of Moskva should be send.

The new Sigma battle management system shares data across the navy so any aircraft or satellites or subs nearby as well as any ships will share information about nearby threats or targets.

The helicopter the Moskva carries has a radar (even the Ka-27 has an air and surface search radar) and high flying radar platforms that would be detecting the Moskva could be detected by Moskvas own radars too... with that information shared to other Russian platforms in the area.

Note the ship pictured in that link I posted regarding upgrading older ships showed a Udaloy class ship that retains its 100mm gun but adds a front deck mounted 8 tube launcher, plus two 6 tube angled launchers replace the previous quad angled launchers for SS-N-14, but it also has two quad launchers amid ships angled like they angle Kh-35 launchers with four pointed out each side... that would be 8+8+12 missiles, which is a pretty good upgrade for that ship even without any other changes.

The Vulcan tubes on the Slava class are bigger so could probably have 8 angled tubes for each two Vulkans, so that would be 64 launch tubes fairly easily mounted on the ship. I can't see the electronics for the new system being bigger or heavier than the electronics for the Vulcans... these tubes are specifically designed to upgrade older ships...

BTW here is a photo from below the deck of a Rif naval SAM missile system (basically S-300).
As you can see there is a lot of wasted space there... in the volume taken up by 96 odd missiles you should be able to fit quite a few launch tubes in a VLS that is more efficient of space:

marat wrote:
Could S 300 be guided via proxy? Or Moskva would have to guide them? For ASM just location of Moskva should be send.

It is a terminal command to active SARH guidance.  As long as a radar is painting the target in the same frequency it can detect it as long as it is within LOS of the seeker.  The bottom line is a NATO fighter launching either Harpoons or Exocets are in danger of being shot down.  That would make them think twice about launching an attack.  The Slava class could shoot down volleys of Harpoons all day.  It is only a saturation attack that would overwhelm her defences.

You have only one slava per fleet. Your other ships have weak long range defences. It will operate alone and no other ship have the radar of s-300 to be used for terminal SARH. Saturation would come very quickly. 1 f-18 can carry 4 harpoons.

The Slava class could shoot down volleys of Harpoons all day.

Go on youtube and search for "s-300 missile fails". With such an old ship and system it will happen for sure during massive launches.

What you need is more Gorshkovs.

Steregouchshy also have 12-16 redut. Having a group of 4 means 48 SAMs and 4 ships with smaller rcs to deal with for the same price as one Gorshkov. That's a harder target for US navy than a single Slava or even a single Gorshkov.

Karakurts have pantsir which can deal with harpoons just just as good as a slava for cheaper.

From your own words, a Us carrier is 40 f-18.

1 gorshkov, 4 steregushchy with 80 Redut to keep aviation away and 12 karakurts around them with 12×8. = 96 ready to fire pantsirs missiles to  destroy any incoming missile, can destroy a carrier group. In total it is 144 uksk for 600km range oniks.

You are underestimating small ships. They can now carry tte same weapons as big one for much smaller price, smaller rcs and higher speed. Bad point is less endurence and less weapons but you can buy more of them which kinda counter that.