Russian Navy: Status and News #6

Podlodka77 wrote:AMCXXL; That's clear to me too, even though it's pointless.
I don't know what "rank" the patrol icebreaker with a full displacement of 8,500 tons belongs to. After all, no one knows the final list of weapons on those ships.
After all, it is illogical that 21631 and 22800 projects are not on the list because they have the striking power of a large surface warship such as Chinese or American destroyers, with the exception of the VLS number - of course..
The anti-submarine, anti-aircraft and electronic equipment on those ships is already something else and it is proportional to the small displacement of those ships..
Bearing in mind how small missile ships of project 21631 have been used in cruise missile strikes from Syria to Ukroshitstan, it is clear that they have a place in that list.

There is one much more interesting point in this.
Russian military budget allocations are less than 1/15 of Murican.
And some 1/4th of the Chinese one.
Yet, they produce the same digit of warships tonnage, while the Navy is not a priority in real.
This is mindblowing.

For the Russians, the "1st rank" ships are only the following ships; aircraft carriers, cruisers, destroyers, SSBN, SSN/SSGN. UDK (universal landing ship) of the project 23900 will certainly be included in that list.
On Russian military forums, there is a debate whether the project 22350 frigate with a full displacement of 5400 tons is "of the 1st or 2nd rank ship". According to the Russian classification, anything over 5000 tons is a "1st rank" ship. If we are realistic, it is still "2nd rank", primarily because of the sailing range and the fact that a difference must be made between ships such as the 1144 "Orlan" and the 1164 "Atlant", or the 1155 "Fregat", compared to the 22350 frigates.
Although the new frigate 22350 is FAR more ready for new times here after all, it is about the displacement of the ship in the first place.

Anyway, according to this indicator, Russia is the third in the world after the USA (389,000) tons and the Chinese with 338,000 tons. wrote:

It's amazing especially since China has little more than Russia. How is it possible if China is intensively expanding its fleet? They build destroyers, cruisers, corvettes in much more than Russia. In addition, it builds aircraft carriers

Podlodka77 wrote:For the Russians, the "1st rank" ships are only the following ships; aircraft carriers, cruisers, destroyers, SSBN, SSN/SSGN. UDK (universal landing ship) of the project 23900 will certainly be included in that list.
On Russian military forums, there is a debate whether the project 22350 frigate with a full displacement of 5400 tons is "of the 1st or 2nd rank ship". According to the Russian classification, anything over 5000 tons is a "1st rank" ship. If we are realistic, it is still "2nd rank", primarily because of the sailing range and the fact that a difference must be made between ships such as the 1144 "Orlan" and the 1164 "Atlant", or the 1155 "Fregat", compared to the 22350 frigates.
Although the new frigate 22350 is FAR more ready for new times here after all, it is about the displacement of the ship in the first place.

1st rank us a ship comamnde for a 1st rank captain, and 22350 "frigate" is a 1st rank ship, included in the 43º Division of North Fleet, with pr-956 and the cruisers
In NATO terms 22350 is a destroyer

ABout Buyan and Karakurt class , these are coastal missile boats, in fact Buyan is a river & inland waters boat, that made necesary the Karakurt witha biggest draft
22160 is a OPV, and Papanin Class Artic patrol ships are also patrol ships, despite have 8500 tons.

JohninMK wrote:Just noticed this, that both the cruisers that were in the Mediterranean earlier have now gone home.

Yes they have.
Ustinov first to North Sea.
Varyag next to Vladivostok (just arrived there)
Adm. Tributs (Udaloy class) also left to Pacific)

In their place came two corvettes (Soobrazitelny and Stoiky) from Baltic Fleet.

I guess it's clear to you by now that I follow the Russian Navy in detail.
I know what battle formation and rank it belongs to and I only wrote my opinion, because frigate 22350 cannot be of the same "rank" as cruisers of project 1144 and 1164.

Russia has a lot of tonnage in construction but it does not matter that much if it takes triple the time for them to make a ship. wrote:

Not entirely true. The construction of submarines is going smoothly, conventional and much more complex nuclear powered ones. In addition, many smaller warships are missing from this list.

Russia has a lot of tonnage in construction but it does not matter that much if it takes triple the time for them to make a ship.

It indicates the ships they are building are not just frigates and corvettes, but as most are still relatively new the boost in speed from serial production of modular designs should start to kick in to reduce construction time and sort out alternative suppliers for parts.

C'mon Garry. Chinese built 25 Type 052D destroyers in less time it took Russians to finish 3 Gorshkovs. Let's be realistic.

If we're talking about "who built how much for their navy", then let's add that since 2011, the USA has put into active service only 10 Arleigh Burke destroyers.
In addition, they also have two Zumwalt destroyers, which currently have offensive power at the level of the Russian patrol ships of project 22160.
China has also put into active service 7 Type-055, 25 Type-052D and 4 Type-052C since 2013. Dozens of Type-054A frigates, Type-056A corvettes. Not to mention landing ships, aircraft carriers, etc. China has put more ships into active service in the past 10 years than the entire West combined. And they are still being built, it is already known that the keels have been laid for the new Type-052DL destroyers.
The US retired 5 Ticonderoga-class cruisers this year, each with 122 cells in their VLS. In the next 5 years, 17 still active Ticonderogas are planned to be decommissioned; 5 in 2023, 3 in 2024, 3 in 2025, 4 in 2026 and 2 in 2027.

As for submarines, the picture is different, but I have no doubts that it will not last long, and even more, I think that the Chinese are far less transparent about the construction of submarines than for surface warships.

Post  caveat emptor Yesterday at 9:37 pm

C'mon Garry. Chinese built 25 Type 052D destroyers in less time it took Russians to finish 3 Gorshkovs. Let's be realistic.

Because a/ Chinese economy is about 6 times bigger than the Russian one and b/ navy is a Chinese priority while c/ not the Russkie priority and finally d/ because Chinese chain of subcontractors was never disrupted but built bottom up, in contrast to the Russkies who faced at least three huge disastrous moments for their shipbuilding in the last 30 years.
You are comparing oranges to bananas.
Yes, bananas are yellow, while oranges are round  

Post Podlodka77 Today at 9:13 am
As for submarines, the picture is different, but I have no doubts that it will not last long, and even more, I think that the Chinese are far less transparent about the construction of submarines than for surface warships.

It is different only because the Chinese want it that way.
They are lagging behind in nuclear submarines, so no point to start a serious building program. They must catch up, and doing it fast.
Type 092 was built in the sole piece only to start. Type 094 is 6 pcs active already with two of them being already "reconfigured" as a testbed for Type 096, and two more are in production to move smoothly to the 096.
They are operating 70 subs for God's sake, and in less than two decades only the number of serious modifications to Type 039 conventional sub was no less than five. Making them capable to involve new technologies and solutions in building programs each few years. That is absolute masterclass. If the Chinese will decide that they want more than 70 subs, they will just start producing them like a bloody chopsticks, and we won't be able to count them so fast those will be floated.

What is scary about chinese is their ability to make cruise missiles in huge numbers as well as drones.

Just imagine if the world's factory goes into a war time mode and switch their civilian production lines to cruise missiles lines.

They will be launching cruise missiles like Soviet used to launch rockets from MRLS.

C'mon Garry. Chinese built 25 Type 052D destroyers in less time it took Russians to finish 3 Gorshkovs. Let's be realistic.

They also built 25 destroyers faster than the US built 17 LCS ships which are a total failure and are likely to all be scrapped and replaced with ships that look a lot like a HATO Gorshkov made in Italy... realistic enough?

US spend almost a trillion a year on their weapons and can't match China either... it is unreasonable for you to expect Russia to try to match China too... they have no reason to do so because China is not a threat like the west is.

BTW launching about 30 x MiG-31Ks each with Kinzhal missiles would deal with any 25 ships afloat today... China can certainly make them very fast but Russia can sink them faster if they want to.

The point is that Russian naval development and production is moving forward and showing solid progress.

But by all means make it a dick measuring contest...

Life is a DMC.
What do you find surprising?

US spend almost a trillion a year on their weapons and can't match China either... it is unreasonable for you to expect Russia to try to match China too... they have no reason to do so because China is not a threat like the west is. wrote:

The USA is no longer even able to match Russia. Russia has introduced more different ships than the US. They build small missile ships better than the LCS, corvettes, frigates. In the case of nuclear submarines, the US is no longer on par with Russia. Conventional ones do not build. Russia does not consider itself a maritime power like the US.

An important factor however is that moving forward the Russians are going to be developing Destroyers and Cruisers which will most likely be all electric drive ships with NPP for electricity generation... which means more than a few shipyards are going to have to learn to work with NPPs on ships.

This is pretty new for the Russian Navy... their only NPP powered ships were a few icebreakers and the Orlan class cruisers.

Russians are going to be developing Destroyers and Cruisers which will most likely be all electric drive ships with NPP wrote:

The US plans to use turbo electric propulsion in the new generation submarine Columbia SSBN.We'll see what they get out of it It will use an electric motor to turn its propellers instead of the reduction gearing and mechanical drive systems used on earlier nuclear-powered submarines.

The Russians have several Icebreakers with thruster pods with electric motors in rotatable pods outside the hull of the ship... they can be rotated 360 degrees and save a lot of weight because normally props are attached to enormous heavy drive shafts directly attached to the propulsion system.

The first pods were foreign made but after 2014 that became a problem so if they are not making them for themselves now they should be in a position to do so soon.

With an all electric drive it means you can place the power generation system anywhere you please including at opposite ends of the ship so one failing wont effect the others ability to deliver power to the ship.

It could even be designed to be removed like a battery and replaced if required.

Those pods are not there to make the ship run, but to maneuver.
Both 22220 and 10510 icebrekers are powered by standard 3 propellers/shafts layout.





In the civilian grade vehicles you have something that is called bow thrustees.



It is made to make it easier to maneuver in ports at low speed.

Stern thrusters are made for the same purpose, only lacking the space, those are made as pods, retractable in some cases - Soviet subs had the same feature.

By the way, until very recently, Russiand were purchasing the whole system abroad. Russian-made thruster pods has been certified no earlier than some two years ago or something.

The source said about the reform in the rocket and artillery forces of the Russian Navy


In Russia, the reform of the coastal missile and artillery troops (BRAV) of the Navy has begun. One of the consequences of the reform will be the renaming of BRAV units. The current formations instead of coastal missile and artillery brigades will become coastal missile brigades, sources in the defense Ministry told Izvestia.

Now their main task, in addition to protecting the coast, will be to support troops not only in the coastal direction, but also throughout the country.

In November of this year, the commander of the Northern Fleet coastal missile formation, Colonel Hamza Rustamov, announced the renaming of one of the brigades.

Artillery armament is no longer the main one for coastal missile and artillery brigades. The current changes will consolidate the actual state of affairs, military expert Dmitry Boltenkov told Izvestia.

"Now the artillery unit remains only in one rocket and artillery brigade on the Black Sea, where there is a battery of the Bereg complex. In all other cases, the artillery component has not been present for some time. At the same time, the brigades actively receive and use the latest missile weapons — DBK "Bal" and "Bastion". They are actively used against ground targets during the SVO, " the expert recalled.

So, they are used to hit targets on land, as the Onyx and X-35 missiles are powerful weapons that are suitable for destroying important targets even behind enemy lines.

Today, coastal missile systems are designed to destroy surface ships, amphibious detachments and convoys of the enemy, cover the bases and coastal facilities of the fleet, groups of troops of their troops in coastal areas. In addition, they can be used to destroy enemy bases and ports.

https://translated.turbopages.org/proxy_u/ru-en.en.b82ea282-637f4b5e-0ae56603-74722d776562/https/iz.ru/1430435/2022-11-24/istochnik-soobshchil-o-reforme-v-raketno-artilleriiskikh-voiskakh-vmf-rossii

Completely not what I was talking about.... I know what bow thrusters are and I know what shaft driven propellers are too and I specifically was talking about external thruster pods that are the only props on the ship.

The ship it was fitted to actually turned the pods 180 degrees in heavy ice so the ship reversed into the heavy ice with the blades chopping up the ice to allow the ship to pass through it more efficiently.



They are called Azipods and are external pods with the screw and the electric motor to turn the screw in an external pod mount that can be rotated 360 degrees.

Note in this image the pods are at the rear of the ship and they normally run this way with the blades pointed forward. If the ice is very thick they can rotate them so the blades face backwards and reverse into the ice with the blade chopping through the ice to break it up into smaller pieces.

(If you don't break it into smaller pieces larger chunks of ice can jam against the hull of the ship and slow her down and perhaps even stop her in the ice... breaking up the ice means the icebreaker gets through much easier meaning any ships that are following her can also make it through too... which is the whole point of an icebreaker.)

All it needs is electricity to run the electric motor inside the pod.



You don't need conventional forward driving screws and nor do you need side thrusters because the pods can do it all.

For an electric drive destroyer or cruiser or CVN you might have four thruster pods, two and the front and two at the back to maximise top speed... you might even develop pods that can angle up or down a few degrees to counter roll or to partially lift the ship out of the water to hydroplane and get even higher speeds using less power.

Anyone who has a motor boat knows you have to get your engine trim right or your boat stays low in the water and cannot move very fast at all. Angling the engine thrust to lift the boat up so it is skimming on top of the water allows you to move much much faster with the same engine power.

That is interesting... only the Black Sea fleet has Bereg 130mm artillery battery.

I wonder if they will upgrade the Bereg to 152mm calibre or even 203mm calibre using developments from Coalition?

I would think they would want 152mm guns on the new destroyers and cruisers that they eventually build, if they just stick to the 130mm gun then the new model with a single barrel does not really seem up to the task of sustained fire like the old twin barrel gun did.

On a positive note the withdrawal from the INF treaty by the US means their coastal batteries can have much longer ranged missiles, which would allow much better sea coverage from shore based missiles, and with the new missiles being rather fast the coverage will be much more effective too.

They could field the wheeled version of Coalition. Or just use standard artillery used by the Army and Naval Infantry.