Russia Defence Forum

Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.

Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


+31
lyle6
miketheterrible
Sujoy
RTN
marcellogo
magnumcromagnon
x_54_u43
Arrow
thegopnik
Tsavo Lion
George1
Mindstorm
Hole
Big_Gazza
walle83
kvs
LMFS
ult
mnztr
The-thing-next-door
dino00
Viktor
PapaDragon
hoom
GarryB
Isos
AlfaT8
SeigSoloyvov
Vann7
max steel
Austin
35 posters

    Russia's naval doctrine and strategy

    avatar
    mnztr


    Posts : 2682
    Points : 2720
    Join date : 2018-01-21

    Russia's naval doctrine and strategy - Page 2 Empty Re: Russia's naval doctrine and strategy

    Post  mnztr Mon Aug 03, 2020 8:54 pm

    Tsavo Lion wrote:I agree with him 100%: https://nvo.ng.ru/armament/2020-07-30/6_1102_flag.html?print=Y

    I agree with him as well, Submarines are an area of strength and the current Russian subs can deliver decisive power at long ranges in both strategic and tactical scenarios. But as I said the UDC with a heavy drone component would be a formidable weapon. Being able to carry 2T of payload means 2 Tsirkon or 4 KH-31s, which is formidable.
    LMFS
    LMFS


    Posts : 5088
    Points : 5084
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    Russia's naval doctrine and strategy - Page 2 Empty Re: Russia's naval doctrine and strategy

    Post  LMFS Mon Aug 03, 2020 11:57 pm

    Tsavo Lion wrote:I agree with him 100%: https://nvo.ng.ru/armament/2020-07-30/6_1102_flag.html?print=Y

    The article is quite pesimistic in my opinion and has some points that are questionable at least:

    The Pacific Fleet is completely isolated from the rest of the fleets,

    VMF frequently sails the Northern Sea Route, why is the Pacific fleet isolated then?

    The navies of the United States, Japan and China are quite capable of cutting off our internal communications in the Sea of ​​Okhotsk.

    I guess it is the foreign navies that would have short life expectation at that distance from Russia...

    In Russia, since Soviet times, there has been an endless dispute between "submariners" and "aircraft carriers". The former believe that the basis of the Russian Navy should be submarine forces, while the latter advocate a classic balanced fleet led by aircraft carriers. It must be admitted that the second option is very attractive from the point of view of prestige and external effect, but it is completely unbearable for the country economically and does not make sense from the point of view of geopolitics. Events in Syria, including the trip to its shores by our only aircraft carrier "Admiral Kuznetsov", alas, fully confirmed this. The role of the Navy in this campaign turned out to be almost symbolic (with the exception of, of course, the Syrian Express BDK and auxiliary ships).

    This is a severe distortion of facts. Aircraft carriers are not built for prestige but to bring air power to the naval domain, but still journos keep hammering on that "show the flag" argument as it had any merit. And of course Syria proves nothing, since Russia has never needed carriers where it can easily offer support directly from Russia.

    We have no alternative to submarines; their construction should be an absolute priority. Only submarines can make the Russian Navy a global factor creating problems for the US and PRC navies. Only they are capable of "pushing" even the most powerful fleets of the world (American, Chinese, Japanese) from our coast, only they are capable of effectively operating on enemy communications.

    Submarines are easy prey of the enemy ASW forces, if you don't restrain their ability to be deployed and used at will with your surface fleet and air power.

    They are not needed to keep fleets away from Russian shores either. Nobody in its right mind is going to sail to war within the operational radius of air launched Kinzhal, because there is no AD capable to counter it.

    Building a large fleet to fight the "Papuans" is a criminal waste of funds. It is all the more unclear, and who are these potential "Papuans" against whom we may need one or two aircraft carriers? We do not need to seize other people's resources, to keep ours.

    Tired, fake argument of surface fleet being needed only to loot other countries as US does. A properly dimensioned blue sea fleet has air power in it and that means aircraft carriers. You don't need to bomb any third world country with them, but maybe you do need to deter somebody else from doing it...

    Maybe someday we will come to the point of nuclear aircraft carriers with nuclear destroyers, but only in the very distant future. There is no point in discussing this future in a world where everything can change radically in a few months. Moreover, such a discussion will inevitably raise the question: will the aircraft carriers share the fate of battleships during and immediately after World War II?

    The author seems to be determined to throw anything against the carrier idea:

    - The fate of carriers is not going to change in months, if it was like that no naval planing would be possible at all;
    - Them being obsolete contradicts the first argument of things changing very fast and also both the planing of all other navies in the world and the dynamics of traditional race between weapon and shield. The same way tanks are not obsolete because ATGMs exist and have evolved in virtue of them being the most protected and effective way of carrying out combat on land, carriers will be reinforced and protected against hypersonic weapons, simply because they are the only known way of having the huge advantages of air power at sea.

    The piece goes on with a series of other arguments based on a reductionist approach to fleet structure. MRKs are not superfluous because there are coastal defences, UDKs are not just toy carriers for attacking Papuans and so on. There is no magical weapon that can defeat all others, if only because it will be very easy for the enemy to study and counter it, specially wealthy enemies like the West. On the contrary, the optimal and most difficult fleet structure to counter is a balanced one, where a variety of elements reinforces the qualities and covers the gaps left by each other. So this demagogic discussion about whether Russia should have carriers or subs would be at best put to rest IMHO, since both are needed in a reasonable amount. That is BTW what the VMF is trying to do, if only "well intentioned" voices domestic and foreign would stop "helping" Wink

    avatar
    mnztr


    Posts : 2682
    Points : 2720
    Join date : 2018-01-21

    Russia's naval doctrine and strategy - Page 2 Empty Re: Russia's naval doctrine and strategy

    Post  mnztr Tue Aug 04, 2020 12:57 am

    LMFS wrote:


    The navies of the United States, Japan and China are quite capable of cutting off our internal communications in the Sea of ​​Okhotsk.

    I don't agree at all, if any of these players tried to blockade the Sea of Okhotsk, they would face massive risks from Russia air power and subs.


    LMFS wrote:
    Submarines are easy prey of the enemy ASW forces, if you don't restrain their ability to be deployed and used at will with your surface fleet and air power.


    Submarines operating without satellite intelligence and airpower backup maybe. Not the case of Russia. With satellite and drone recon the Russians would know when any naval ship is miles away from their subs. P8 may be a risk, but it would have to localize the sub first. P8s also flying low and slow are at serious risk to being shot down by subs. In high tenstion times the Subs would be protected by fighters.

    LMFS wrote:
    They are not needed to keep fleets away from Russian shores either. Nobody in its right mind is going to sail to war within the operational radius of air launched Kinzhal, because there is no AD capable to counter it.

    Subs are great predators, Russian subs can strike form very long range and be a long distance away when their missiles are arriving at the target.

    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion


    Posts : 5824
    Points : 5780
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Russia's naval doctrine and strategy - Page 2 Empty Re: Russia's naval doctrine and strategy

    Post  Tsavo Lion Tue Aug 04, 2020 2:31 am

    VMF frequently sails the Northern Sea Route, why is the Pacific fleet isolated then?
    they do, & some subs been transferred between fleets, but it takes at least 2-2.5 weeks & surface ships need icebreaker escort- so it's seldom done.
    The navies of the United States, Japan and China are quite capable of cutting off our internal communications in the Sea of ​​Okhotsk.
    I guess it is the foreign navies that would have short life expectancy at that distance from Russia...
    enemy subs/UUVs can sneak in, just like Russian subs can get into the Med./Yellow/Red seas, & the Mexican Gulf.
    U r contradicting urself here:
    Nobody in its right mind is going to sail to war within the operating radius of air launched Kinzhal, because there is no AD capable to counter it.
    ..carriers will be reinforced and protected against hypersonic weapons, simply because they are the only known way of having the huge advantages of air power at sea.
    I doubt they have any advantages left when confronting Russia & China- the USN now has to rely on the USAF for help even more than before.
    I agree the fleet must be balanced, but it takes time to build new ships/subs, while in the meantime political/economic situation changes leading to changes in naval trends. That's why the militaries around the World r best prepared to fight the last war.
    LMFS
    LMFS


    Posts : 5088
    Points : 5084
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    Russia's naval doctrine and strategy - Page 2 Empty Re: Russia's naval doctrine and strategy

    Post  LMFS Tue Aug 04, 2020 3:09 am

    mnztr wrote:I don't agree at all, if any of these players tried to blockade the Sea of Okhotsk, they would face massive risks from Russia air power and subs.

    We agree, that was a quote from the article and my answer was below.

    Submarines operating without satellite intelligence and airpower backup maybe. Not the case of Russia. With satellite and drone recon the Russians would know when any naval ship is miles away from their subs. P8 may be a risk, but it would have to localize the sub first. P8s also flying low and slow are at serious risk to being shot down by subs. In high tenstion times the Subs would be protected by fighters.

    If you allow your enemy to deploy all their ASW means unobstructed by a surface fleet with sufficient air power they will find and destroy your subs, if you put all your eggs in the sub basket they will have every incentive to invest seriously on all kinds of ASW weapons, sensor networks etc.

    Tsavo Lion wrote:U r contradicting urself here:

    Currently such weapons as Kinzhal cannot be reliably countered, it doesn't mean in 5 or 10 years the situation will be the same, and carriers as capital ships will have priority in getting protection... that is why I mention the race between offensive and defensive means.

    I doubt they have any advantages left when confronting Russia & China- the USN now has to rely on the USAF for help even more than before.

    The rot in the USN is even more serious than in other services, they have practically been left without air superiority. That does not mean that the sheer amount of air, surface and submarine power available to them is not head and shoulders above anyone else's... at the moment. But you are right, they are trying to let USAF do the heavy lifting more and more... which contradicts the very essence of naval air power doesn't it? That is, used where you can't count on land-based support. Since USN CSGs are used normally for land attack, they create a false image of what naval aviation is and how it should be used.
    avatar
    mnztr


    Posts : 2682
    Points : 2720
    Join date : 2018-01-21

    Russia's naval doctrine and strategy - Page 2 Empty Re: Russia's naval doctrine and strategy

    Post  mnztr Tue Aug 04, 2020 5:42 am

    LMFS wrote:by subs. In high tenstion times the Subs would be protected by fighters.

    If you allow your enemy to deploy all their ASW means unobstructed by a surface fleet with sufficient air power they will find and destroy your subs, if you put all your eggs in the sub basket they will have every incentive to invest seriously on all kinds of ASW weapons, sensor networks etc.

    [/quote]

    I am honestly not sure that is true any more. The current Russian subs can strike from such a distance, as long as they have access to drone or satellite intelligence real time they are at the top of the food chain. Nothing can really get close enough to challange them. I would say the US ASW planes are the most dangerous asset against subs. But as long as the subs stay close to Russian air cover the P-8s will not dare to engage.
    GarryB
    GarryB


    Posts : 38473
    Points : 38973
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Russia's naval doctrine and strategy - Page 2 Empty Re: Russia's naval doctrine and strategy

    Post  GarryB Tue Aug 04, 2020 12:20 pm

    China is the better shipbuilder, thats a fact.

    You need to define better... China is having a growth spurt, and that is great for China, but production numbers alone really don't tell a full story.

    Oh come on Garry, I know you live close to the great dragon and they are kinda scary, yes I am uneasy about Chinas rise as well but to question if Laioning is operational?

    I don't fear the dragon at all... I know quite a few Chinese people and I find them honestly to be better people than the white people I know, and there is no evidence I have seen that rich Chinese people are any worse than rich Americans or rich Brits... the more money you have the less inclined you are to share it or lose it... and has more to do with human nature than ethnicity.

    We forget that Russia built it first heavy bomber by copying the b-29 and copied British RR engines to get to where they are today.

    The B-29 held them back... they would have been much better off spending a little more time making their own design than just copying that plane.

    And BTW the Soviets landed an ANT-25 in the US that flew about 15,000km non stop to land there which actually resulted in funding being made available to build what eventually became the B-17.... without which there would be no B-29.

    The Russians were using strategic bombers in WWI, and had plenty of large bomber aircraft well before WWII.

    And the RR engines were rather more powerful than the engines they were already working on... but what was Britains equivalent to the MiG-15... they rapidly improved well beyond simply making copies of foreign products in every department, which does make it rather different.

    If it made sense Russia could put Emals and MIG 29 on the 23900..or use it for heavy strike drones like Okhotnik.

    It would make as much sense as replacing everything on a Kirov class cruiser with a flat metal plate and using it as a helicopter carrier.

    The 23900 is a helicopter carrying landing ship... they have rather large numbers of naval infantry and this is the ship they will largely operate from... putting MiG-29s on it would be stupid... helicopters are critical for landings.... MIG-29s are useless except in opposing enemy air power... but at best you might get 4 onto the ship and the cost of the EMALS and the space four MiGs would take plus the fuel and weapons they need to operate would mean you will only be carrying 10 helicopters... and helicopters are useful... four MiGs in comparison are not... it is a stupid idea... and would only be considered by countries that can't afford real aircraft carriers but realise how important air power can be.

    If they put 5 Okhotniks on the 23900, it would increase the strike capability of the ship by several orders of magnitude.

    Are you listening to what you are suggesting... putting a subsonic drone that carries bombs and light missiles on a helicopter landing craft... why? All the ships and subs that operate with this ship will have Kalibre a subsonic long range land attack missile that does exactly the same job but much easier and much cheaper and already in place.

    EMALS is not an easy tech to master. Also the Chinese claim to have made some breakthoroughs on DC power systems that could transform shipboard power systems.

    The J20 is quite an impressive machine all in all as well.

    I never said it was, but why do you assume that a system China has created for its own needs and its own ships would even be compatible with Russian ships or needs?

    What sort of heavy AWACS aircraft is the Chinese system capable of launching? The Russians don't need a system to launch fighters because their fighters use a ski ramp for takeoffs...

    In terms of great powers that do little copying, I would say France, Britain and Germany tend to develop the most independant IP.

    Using term great a little loosely now I see, but nobody wants to completely reinvent the wheel... when developing anything the first step in the developing process is to look at any other solution anyone has already come up with and look at the design solutions they chose and try to work out why.

    For instance with the US Space shuttle they didn't have a big powerful rocket they could launch their shuttle on so the shuttle itself needed some big rocket engines. These big rocket engines needed a huge fuel tank which made the whole thing so heavy it could not take off on its own so they added two very powerful and very expensive solid rocket motors. The Soviets were able to look at the design and recognise the problems with it and make significant changes to make Buran a better shuttle. NASA spent 2 billion dollars testing all sorts of shapes for their shuttle... it would be arrogant and short sighted of the Soviets to ignore their work...

    In Russia, since Soviet times, there has been an endless dispute between "submariners" and "aircraft carriers". The former believe that the basis of the Russian Navy should be a submarine force, the latter advocate a classic balanced fleet led by aircraft carriers. We must admit that the second option is very attractive in terms of prestige and external effect, but it is completely useless for the country economically and does not make sense from the point of view of geopolitics.

    Russia needs to expand it trade and its relations with the rest of the world.... ie not just the countries on its borders which the west has systematically made hostile to Russia. It can't do that with Submarines... it needs surface ships and if you want to operate surface ships away from Russian IADS and land based air power then by default you need aircraft carriers. As I keep saying, you don't need to match anyone in numbers or size, but you need radars and EO systems in the air and fighters in the air that can blunt an attack and add a layer of defence to make the ships safer and better protected.

    The events in Syria, including the cruise of our only aircraft carrier, Admiral Kuznetsov, to its shores, have, alas, fully confirmed this. The Navy's role in this campaign was almost symbolic (with the exception, of course, of the BDK's" Syrian Express " and auxiliary vessels).

    Without a strong navy and sea access how do you think a conflict over Venezuela or Cuba would turn out? Without the Russian Navy the HATO forces could have sat off shore and launched attack after attack supporting terrorists fighting against Assad... dismissing the effect the Navy had is ignoring that many of the cruise missiles launched came from Corvettes in the Caspian Sea and other ships... only a few from subs.

    We have no alternative to submarines, and their construction should be an absolute priority.

    Short sighted and stupid... there is no point in making more submarines than they are already making so there is no need to change priority... in terms of WWIII having 500 modern and capable subs might wipe out the fleets of all our enemies... but we will be dead anyway so who cares?

    Developing a strong submarine fleet to win a world war is as delusional as the HATO leaders who think turning all of Russias neighbours against her is making her weaker. Cutting away the fat and making her more independent is not making her weaker.

    A carrier group can further Russian interests around the world without fear of being stopped by a blockade or other some such rubbish.

    [quote]Only SUBMARINES can make the Russian Navy a global factor that creates problems for the US and Chinese navies. {/quote]

    Russia already is a global factor, but with very poor flexibility... lots of power during war time, but no power at all during peace time... which is when Russia needs it the most.

    And why on earth would Russia want to create problems for the Chinese? That is just stupid... let them have as many islands in the south china sea as they like... at least they didn't murder the natives to get it like the western colonial powers of the US and UK did.

    Only they are able to "push back" even the most powerful fleets of the world (American, Chinese, Japanese) from our coast, only they are able to effectively operate on the enemy's communications.

    But they are already able to do everything Russia needs... three dozen MiG-31s with kinzhals is more effective and much faster reacting than any sub they have... near Russian coastlines there is no problem in terms of war time... it is peace time and therefore lack of surface presence that is the problem and a carrier makes a surface presence safer and more practical.

    We will not be able to build a surface fleet comparable to the American and Chinese in any foreseeable future, even theoretically. Building a large fleet to fight the "Papuans" is a criminal waste of funds. All the more unclear, and who are these potential "Papuans", against which we may need one or two aircraft carriers? We don't need to capture other people's resources to keep our own.

    You don't need 12 CVNs and carrier groups to go with them, but you do need surfaces ships that can operate anywhere for as long as needed and to support them it just makes sense to have aircraft carriers because that extends their view and reach in a way no submarine can.


    Perhaps one day we will have to deal with nuclear-powered aircraft carriers with nuclear-powered destroyers, but only in the very distant future. It makes no sense to discuss this future in a world where everything can radically change in a few months. Moreover, such a discussion inevitably raises the question: will aircraft carriers share the fate of battleships during and immediately after world war II?

    We will know when the Russian Army says they are happy with their SAMs and really don't require the Air Force any more to defend Russian airspace...

    Plus you already stated at the start of the article that you need seriously long term future planning for a Navy because things are expensive and nothing happens fast so how about laying down the ground work now because in 10 years time if you think you need something it will be too late.

    On the other hand, the question arises: to what extent do we need units that are conceptually opposed to aircraft carriers and destroyers – small ships and boats? For example, now under construction small missile ships (MRK) PR. 21631 and 22800. Firing "Calibers" at targets in Syria showed a very high strike potential of such ships, making them a kind of"micro-aircraft carriers". But because of their small size, they have very limited seaworthiness and range of navigation, very weak air defense. Therefore, there is a feeling that the MRC largely duplicates the coastal defense, which can also fire the same "Calibers", but with much cheaper ground-based PU, moreover better protected by air defense means. In addition, the US has released us from the INF Treaty, which allows us to place the same "Calibers" on ground-based missiles to hit ground targets. Such PU will also be cheaper than ships and better covered by air defense. Of course, the MRC, going out to sea, pushes the launch line of missiles several hundred kilometers from the coast, but at the same time creates the task of providing them with air defense at this distance from the coast, thereby "straining" the fighter aircraft or requiring cover from larger surface ships.

    Certainly land based missile launchers make sense but the Russian navy has never before had corvettes able to attack land based targets from enormous distances with land attack missiles so why did the Russian navy have so many corvettes before? Is it possible there are other jobs and roles small ships can perform other than starting WWIII?

    Partly, of course, the weakness of the air defense of the Russian MRC is compensated by the St. Andrew's flags on their flagpoles. That is, a strike from someone on our IDC (even if it is momentarily unpunished) automatically means aggression against Russia "with all the consequences" that no one wants. This approach is generally possible, but still somewhat adventurous. Therefore, it may be advisable to focus on the construction of ships in the Maritime zone, that is, frigates. It can be the ships of PR. 22350, and already tested PR. 11356, and some of their synthesis, and a completely new project. They will have the same St. Andrew's flags, the same "Calibers" in the PU, only in greater numbers than on the MRC, and all this will be supplemented at least by relatively adequate air defense, which together with the St. Andrew's flag will act on any potential enemy much more sobering than the St. Andrew's flag itself.

    Which will result in a fleet of corvettes and Frigates able to operate well in Russian waters, but who is going to bother trading with Russia if the next day the US imposes a naval blockade and tries to replace their government like they did in Venezuela and indeed Syria.

    Without international trade you are land locked by your enemies.

    As for landing craft, if we abandon aircraft carriers, it is quite natural to continue building our traditional BDK ("Amphibious problem of the Russian Navy"," HVO " from 22.03.19), simultaneously able to perform the role of military transports. For their protection, those very frigates (and again, St. Andrew's flags on the masts) would be enough. As for the universal landing craft (UDC), the question of the construction of which seems almost solved, then everything is also ambiguous. Theoretically, UDC becomes some cheaper " I. O. aircraft carriers", while they are more useful in that they are able to land troops, and in an over-the-horizon way. In this role UDK just coming for the war with the natives, pretending to be a serious confrontation between the countries and their navies. However, there are still open questions as to who these aborigines are, where they are located, and why we should direct the UDC against them. Of course, UDC can also be used in the aforementioned role of military transports, for transporting troops and equipment from Russia to Russia, for example, from Vladivostok to Sakhalin, the Kuril Islands, Kamchatka and Chukotka. This is the only conceivable way to use UDC in a "real" war. However, it is quite likely that for the same money you can build twice as many traditional BDK, which are much better suited for the role of troop transports.


    But hang on... I thought carriers were useless and they should just make subs... the ridiculous thing is that building mini carriers because they are cheap leads to building extra to carry the fighter planes you suddenly realise you actually need and you end up with 20 fucking carriers... all too small to be useful but still more expensive than any decent CVN you could have had that would actually do the job you need it to do.

    The marine corps will largely continue to serve as a coastal defense force when limited amphibious operations are possible, and in peacetime rather than in wartime. Marine aviation requires very significant strengthening-both at the expense of specialized aircraft and helicopters (primarily patrol and anti-submarine), and at the expense of machines similar to those available in the VKS, but working in the interests of the Navy.

    So piss money away making small ineffectual carriers you never really plan to use and a vertical take off fighter plane that can use it but is totally useless compared to more conventional equivalents but you have to use it anyway because you are trapped walking down teh road of small carriers and useless fighters... to save some money.
    In the mean time everyone stops buying your weapons because when they do the economic sanctions from the west are intense and if they are not careful they get overthrown in some Maiden of their own, so Russia looses most of its export partners and slowly withers on the vine of isolation despite all its resources cause it was too cheap to build a navy that could defend its interests...

    It is OK... Britain has already gone down that road... why not Russia.

    Such a variant of the construction of the Navy could become optimal both in economic and military terms, allowing the Russian Navy to most effectively solve the tasks that it makes sense to set before it.

    It is a plan for failure, and it shows a common ignorance that if Russia has carriers it must be like the west has carriers... either the US plan with too many money draining white elephants, or the UK model where the smaller carrier is less use than tits on a bull and would get slaughtered against any real enemy (fortunately the west does not select real enemies to fight, or if it does... it forms a coalition of the stupid to drag others in to fight their battles.

    I agree with him as well, Submarines are an area of strength and the current Russian subs can deliver decisive power at long ranges in both strategic and tactical scenarios. But as I said the UDC with a heavy drone component would be a formidable weapon. Being able to carry 2T of payload means 2 Tsirkon or 4 KH-31s, which is formidable.

    They already have as many subs as they need.. perhaps a few more... but they are not going win WWIII.

    Tired, fake argument of surface fleet being needed only to loot other countries as US does. A properly dimensioned blue sea fleet has air power in it and that means aircraft carriers. You don't need to bomb any third world country with them, but maybe you do need to deter somebody else from doing it...

    Exactly... if Russia can't use force anywhere on the planet then how can it ensure its interests?

    If it gets a nice lucrative contract with Peru, and the US objects and threatens Peru... how are Russian frigates and corvettes or for that matter submarines going to deal with that?

    And the suggestion that Frigates will be able to protect helicopter landing ships is pathetic... cold war frigates could barely protect themselves... you needed a cold war cruiser to have any chance of providing an air defence umbrella. The New ships are much better equipped but even with their new systems a modern frigate probably has enough SAMs on board to defend itself from a decent attack, but not ships nearby.... at the very least you would need a modern destroyer to protect other ships and you would do better with 3-4 of them and perhaps a cruiser or two.... and if you are building cruisers and destroyers then it makes sense to spend a little more on a fixed wing carrier to protect those ships from the attack of a more powerful country...

    As I keep saying... with the Kuznetsov, they probably need two CVNs and at least 8 new cruisers and perhaps 24 destroyer types split between the only two fleets that really matter... in so called war time the Baltic and Black Sea fleets are blocked by HATO... it would be pointless basing major ships there.... with the north sea route basing them in the Pacific and Northern fleet would give them quick access to the Atlantic and Pacific oceans...

    I don't agree at all, if any of these players tried to blockade the Sea of Okhotsk, they would face massive risks from Russia air power and subs.

    He is quoting from the article you just agreed with...

    Submarines operating without satellite intelligence and airpower backup maybe. Not the case of Russia. With satellite and drone recon the Russians would know when any naval ship is miles away from their subs. P8 may be a risk, but it would have to localize the sub first. P8s also flying low and slow are at serious risk to being shot down by subs. In high tenstion times the Subs would be protected by fighters.

    What he is basically saying is that carriers are worthless because we are not a colonial power looking for resources to steal, and that therefore we can have a tiny navy based on Subs that will win WWIII for us.

    And he is wrong on every count.

    Subs are great predators, Russian subs can strike form very long range and be a long distance away when their missiles are arriving at the target.

    They are.. but fucking useless in any situation except war time. If the US decides to get serious because trump needs a victory and he sends three carrier groups to block all sea based trade to Venezuela and says nothing is going in or out till Maduro hands power over to Guano... WTF is Russia going to do with its submarines and frigates and corvettes? Ask him to stop and tell him he is being a big bully?

    Other potential trade partners in central and south america and asia and africa will look at that and think... they are a paper tiger... they have nukes and hypersonic missiles but they can't use them without starting a war that could spiral out of control... if I start trading with them they are hardly going to start a war with the US or UK or even France just so they can trade with us so there is no point buying Russian or even speaking to them because they have no muscle.

    Saying Russia needs aircraft carriers is not saying Russia needs to act like a censored like the use does and invade countries and regime change... that is not Russia... if that was Russia then there would be a friendly government in Georgia and the Ukraine and Belarus by now... and probably the baltic countries and Finland and in fact all the former Soviet states... Russia does not need to become such a thing but they do also have to be able to back what they say and what they want with force... and sometimes that means sending surface ships around the world. They wont always need an aircraft carrier to go with them because their IADS is amazing, but a lot of the time it will make them rather more powerful and more flexible.

    When a US AEGIS class cruiser sailed into Iranian waters and was firing on Iranian naval patrol boats the Americans disrespectfully called Boghammers, and they detected an aircraft approaching they tried to contact it on military radio. After getting no reply (because they were a civilian airliner on a marked civilian airliner route) the commander of the ship had to make a decision and he made the wrong one that killed almost 300 people. His erratic behaviour let to a nearby carrier to call its fighters back for fear he might shoot them down... if he wasn't such a dick riding high on his ego trip of commanding an AEGIS class cruiser in the US Navy perhaps he might have called that carrier group to fly over and investigate the incoming aircraft. Without that option he had to make a choice and murdered about 289 people.

    Aircraft carriers we are talking about are fighter interceptors... they don't need strike performance like US carriers... even sending a strike package of one Su-33 with iron bombs is not cheap because you need inflight refuelling aircraft and you need fighter escort and jammers and recon... your strike package to deliver a couple of bombs might include 8-10 fighters which means even just dropping two 500kg bombs it is going to be a couple of million dollars and that is assuming nothing gets shot down. A Kalibr missile has the accuracy and right now a range of 2,500km.... and likely pretty soon much more than double that when they adapt it to the size and shape of the UKSK-M launchers.

    Russian aircraft carriers will primarily be there to protect the Russian surface ships so they can do the job they are supposed to be doing.

    They are neither US imperial carriers, nor the dinky half arsed toys the British had, nor the scaled up Kuznetsov sized carriers the UK currently uses without ships that could probably protect it... ironically.
    GarryB
    GarryB


    Posts : 38473
    Points : 38973
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Russia's naval doctrine and strategy - Page 2 Empty Re: Russia's naval doctrine and strategy

    Post  GarryB Tue Aug 04, 2020 12:34 pm

    they do, & some subs been transferred between fleets, but it takes at least 2-2.5 weeks & surface ships need icebreaker escort- so it's seldom done.

    They are expanding it as a commerical route between the EU and Asia so it is going to become much more heavily used by military and civilian traffic.

    enemy subs/UUVs can sneak in, just like Russian subs can get into the Med./Yellow/Red seas, & the Mexican Gulf.
    U r contradicting urself here:

    Seabed based sonar systems will make that tricky to do without being noticed...

    I doubt they have any advantages left when confronting Russia & China- the USN now has to rely on the USAF for help even more than before.

    Did you just say the US Navy is dependent on US AF air power for protection?

    Perhaps that confirms the value of large fixed wing carriers and reflects the poor choices the USN has made in terms of selecting the aircraft it operates... the Super Hornet and F-35 were not great selections...

    I agree the fleet must be balanced, but it takes time to build new ships/subs, while in the meantime political/economic situation changes leading to changes in naval trends. That's why the militaries around the World r best prepared to fight the last war.

    I keep telling you... the Russian surface fleets and aircraft carriers would be zero use in WWIII... Russia needs a surface fleets that can operate for extended periods great distances from Russian soil because it means they will have global reach and global effect and can trade with countries they don't share a land border without fear of the US or UK or France deciding to interfere using naval power.

    Currently such weapons as Kinzhal cannot be reliably countered, it doesn't mean in 5 or 10 years the situation will be the same, and carriers as capital ships will have priority in getting protection... that is why I mention the race between offensive and defensive means.

    No major land country on the planet thinks they don't need aircraft... surely their army will be enough and they don't need to waste money on expensive planes.... they can just have ground launched anti aircraft missiles and strategic missiles... no airfields and no planes because they are expensive and too hard to protect...

    Why would anyone think a group of ships or subs would be safer without aircraft protecting them?

    The rot in the USN is even more serious than in other services, they have practically been left without air superiority. That does not mean that the sheer amount of air, surface and submarine power available to them is not head and shoulders above anyone else's... at the moment. But you are right, they are trying to let USAF do the heavy lifting more and more... which contradicts the very essence of naval air power doesn't it? That is, used where you can't count on land-based support. Since USN CSGs are used normally for land attack, they create a false image of what naval aviation is and how it should be used.

    Which is ironic because the US Army should see the rot in the USAF and realise that Stinger and Chapparal and ground launched AMRAAM probably are not going to cut it...

    I am honestly not sure that is true any more. The current Russian subs can strike from such a distance, as long as they have access to drone or satellite intelligence real time they are at the top of the food chain. Nothing can really get close enough to challange them. I would say the US ASW planes are the most dangerous asset against subs. But as long as the subs stay close to Russian air cover the P-8s will not dare to engage.

    You said it yourself... do you think Trumps space forces are going to ignore those Russian Navy satellites tracking all their stuff?

    And it is funny that when a western platform threatens you suggest Russian air cover can deal with it... so these global reach subs that makes cruisers and destroyers and aircraft carriers redundant can't even protect themselves from MPAs like even the smallest corvette probably could?


    Last edited by GarryB on Wed Aug 05, 2020 1:04 pm; edited 1 time in total
    avatar
    mnztr


    Posts : 2682
    Points : 2720
    Join date : 2018-01-21

    Russia's naval doctrine and strategy - Page 2 Empty Re: Russia's naval doctrine and strategy

    Post  mnztr Tue Aug 04, 2020 3:45 pm

    Sorry there is no way Russia was ready at the time (1947) to build a more advanced plane then the TU-04. Stalin had savaged the aerospace industry with his purges and while Tupolev may have been able to design a superior airframe, I doubt at the time they could have surpassed or matched the engine tech. Not sure if the TU-04 has the computerized guns. Russia has a history of brilliant people supressed by their political system and culture. Even the brilliant Mig-15 would not have been possible without British engine tech. (neither would the Saber for that matter).

    Kaliber missiles are not very useful for opposed landings where you need saturated and very timely strikes. That is, - MASS. STOBAR launches simply cannot carry the payload of CATOBAR, but even with a ramp a MIG29 can carry much more payload then a KA-52 and deliver it faster with a much higher sortie rate. If you consider how much ordinance a MIG-29 or Okhotnik can deliver in 1 day vs a KA-52..that is your decider. They would probably do a combo of Helo and water landing as the HELO troops can set up a fire base and support the amphibous landing with mortar and rocket fire....but it really depends on the tactical scenario. Its not right to say if a MIG-29 or KA-52 is more useful. It really depends on the situation. A KA-52 is not gonna be useful for delivering troops either. In fact its a pretty single minded beast.

    As for AWACS the Chinese carrier based AWACS is imminent. For now they probably use HELOs.
    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion


    Posts : 5824
    Points : 5780
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Russia's naval doctrine and strategy - Page 2 Empty Re: Russia's naval doctrine and strategy

    Post  Tsavo Lion Tue Aug 04, 2020 3:48 pm

    Developing a strong submarine fleet to win a world war is.. delusional
    SSBNs can prevent it or deliver retaliation; SSNs & SSKs r needed to protect them, besides participating in peacetime ops & local wars. He isn't implying that subs alone can win any war. Russia has road mobile ICBMs & may revive BM trains.
    If Russia needs anything she doesn't have, or it's too expensive to extract/produce, she has a long borders with former Soviet Republics, China (which in turn borders on SE Asia & Pakistan which borders on India & Iran which borders on the Caspian Sea & Azerbaijan which borders on Russia)  & Mongolia- they can supply her with the same or similar goods that r worth buying from Africa & L. América. As in the Soviet times, they can do w/o plenty of bananas, coffee & cacao. Georgian tea & wine can be transported via the Black Sea, air & land.
    Russia is nearly 100% self contained & sufficient; she doesn't depend on overseas trade & SLOCs as China, UK, France, SK, Japan & the Americas. (Btw Japan will become a continental nation after roads r built to Sakhalin & Hokkaido- making her dependent on Russia for land route to Europe. Then, the US will be shown the door.)
    The bottom line is that CVNs r not worth as much, if at all, to Russia as to the US, UK & China. She doesn't have possessions in Hawaii, California & Alaska anymore; $ from its sale were used to build railroads in Siberia, not the blue water navy.


    Last edited by Tsavo Lion on Tue Aug 04, 2020 10:02 pm; edited 1 time in total (Reason for editing : add text)
    avatar
    mnztr


    Posts : 2682
    Points : 2720
    Join date : 2018-01-21

    Russia's naval doctrine and strategy - Page 2 Empty Re: Russia's naval doctrine and strategy

    Post  mnztr Tue Aug 04, 2020 5:37 pm

    Developing a strong submarine fleet to win a world war is.. delusional

    It really depends on who the opponent is. Against NATO/China no way. All others depends on how far you are willing to go. Destroy Navy, blockade and mine, use Kaliber to destroy all runways, decaptitation strikes and start taking out infrastructure. Game over..if necessary threaten nukes. = surrender

    If the US decides to blockade Venezuela Russia can send Russian flagged vessels escorted by subs. They can also provide Venezuela with means to fight back against it with KH-31s. The use of Kaliber from the Caspian sea was a very powerful message that Russia can put ships into a sea that is 100% inaccessible to the USN and still strike USN targets in highly strategic areas.  The Kaliber missile housed in a container is also a nasty little beast. If the USN stops a Venezuelan flagged vessel...who knows what is in the container? SURPRISE!!!

    Subs may not be able to defeat NATO or China, but they can make the cost of war incredibly high and also make a war against Russia unwinnable. Russia has predicated its soveriegnity on making it so incredibly scary to contemplate war against Russia, and with this it has been successful. Unfortunately it also makes Russia pretty intimidating as a partner at the trade and commercial level.


    Last edited by mnztr on Tue Aug 04, 2020 6:51 pm; edited 1 time in total
    kvs
    kvs


    Posts : 14949
    Points : 15086
    Join date : 2014-09-11
    Location : Turdope's Kanada

    Russia's naval doctrine and strategy - Page 2 Empty Re: Russia's naval doctrine and strategy

    Post  kvs Tue Aug 04, 2020 6:27 pm

    It is tiresome to keep hearing the drivel about the value of aircraft carriers.

    1) During the US-Japan war in the 1940s they actually had a function.   Now they have zero in any
    engagement between military superpowers.   This is the critical point, they are no longer useful for
    serious war that will transition to nuclear exchanges.  

    2) Corollary of the above is that they serve zero purpose for Russia as a tool of national defense.  

    3) The US has been using its aircraft carriers as 3rd world colonial enforcement.   The cheesy Hollywood
    movies about space colonial marines highlights this aspect of US military "prowess".  

    Since Russia is not planning to terrorize developing countries, it does not need aircraft carriers.  I have not seen
    a serious case made for them.   And the fact that "journalists" and pundits keep raising the wave the flag
    argument demonstrates any lack of substance.
    LMFS
    LMFS


    Posts : 5088
    Points : 5084
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    Russia's naval doctrine and strategy - Page 2 Empty Re: Russia's naval doctrine and strategy

    Post  LMFS Tue Aug 04, 2020 6:41 pm

    GarryB wrote:As I keep saying, you don't need to match anyone in numbers or size, but you need radars and EO systems in the air and fighters in the air that can blunt an attack and add a layer of defence to make the ships safer and better protected.

    Isn't it curious how stubborn this discussion is? The only point that I would really love people to understand is that air power in the naval domain is as important as for land based forces. Nobody in its right mind would defend armed forces to do without air power on land, but interestingly some people automatically reject the notion of Russia having aircraft carriers, which is the only way to guarantee access to air power far from Russia. Interestingly, this concern about proper budget use applies only to Russia while the rest of small and big powers in this world keep planning and building carriers without any significant questioning.

    Short sighted and stupid... there is no point in making more submarines than they are already making so there is no need to change priority...

    Indeed, they are now building 8 Yasen and 4 (soon 6) Borei, + Belgorod & Khavarovsk, plus all the 636.3 and 677. Nobody is denying the importance of subs in the VMF, but interestingly the security of those is in question precisely because there aren't enough surface groups to ensure NATO ASW forces stay far enough from them. This is actually a major concern for SSBN forces in the North Fleet, I am not making this up.

    Russia already is a global factor, but with very poor flexibility... lots of power during war time, but no power at all during peace time... which is when Russia needs it the most.

    Exactly. A good surface fleet present in the relevant hot spots at the right time is the best and cheapest remedy against wars and interference.

    And the suggestion that Frigates will be able to protect helicopter landing ships is pathetic... cold war frigates could barely protect themselves... you needed a cold war cruiser to have any chance of providing an air defence umbrella. The New ships are much better equipped but even with their new systems a modern frigate probably has enough SAMs on board to defend itself from a decent attack, but not ships nearby.... at the very least you would need a modern destroyer to protect other ships and you would do better with 3-4 of them and perhaps a cruiser or two.... and if you are building cruisers and destroyers then it makes sense to spend a little more on a fixed wing carrier to protect those ships from the attack of a more powerful country...

    Yeah, the first step of renewed Russian blue water fleet with deterring potential depends on the Nakhimov and Tsirkon combo. They will manage with those two until the 22350M and eventually the Lider appear, but in the medium term a couple of CVNs is needed.

    No major land country on the planet thinks they don't need aircraft... surely their army will be enough and they don't need to waste money on expensive planes.... they can just have ground launched anti aircraft missiles and strategic missiles... no airfields and no planes because they are expensive and too hard to protect...

    Why would anyone think a group of ships or subs would be safer without aircraft protecting them?

    100%


    Last edited by LMFS on Tue Aug 04, 2020 8:40 pm; edited 1 time in total

    GarryB likes this post

    avatar
    mnztr


    Posts : 2682
    Points : 2720
    Join date : 2018-01-21

    Russia's naval doctrine and strategy - Page 2 Empty Re: Russia's naval doctrine and strategy

    Post  mnztr Tue Aug 04, 2020 7:01 pm

    And the suggestion that Frigates will be able to protect helicopter landing ships is pathetic... cold war frigates could barely protect themselves... you needed a cold war cruiser to have any chance of providing an air defence umbrella. The New ships are much better equipped but even with their new systems a modern frigate probably has enough SAMs on board to defend itself from a decent attack, but not ships nearby.... at the very least you would need a modern destroyer to protect other ships and you would do better with 3-4 of them and perhaps a cruiser or two.... and if you are building cruisers and destroyers then it makes sense to spend a little more on a fixed wing carrier to protect those ships from the attack of a more powerful country...

    [/quote]

    But what the article says about carrier being only useful to attack unsophisticated nations is somewhat true. Russian carriers in a direct confrontation with NATO or China would be just about useful as US carriers...i.e future reefs. It only may work in proxy wars of strategic importance. The fact is, when a Russian ship heads out into the ocean, its is backed by the premise of "do you dare to risk war with Russia?"If the USN sinks the Russian surface fleet, Russia has hundreds of options to retaliate without going nuclear. Or they can nuke US bases that are not on the US mainland and based in nations that have no nukes. Sink US shipping, mine US ports, attack US investments abroad etc etc. War with Russia is just not feasible. The US is in the process of surrendering to the Taliban, I think they know they cannot handle Russia.
    SeigSoloyvov
    SeigSoloyvov


    Posts : 3664
    Points : 3644
    Join date : 2016-04-08

    Russia's naval doctrine and strategy - Page 2 Empty Re: Russia's naval doctrine and strategy

    Post  SeigSoloyvov Tue Aug 04, 2020 7:03 pm

    Russia would need destroyers before they can even think of building CV's, we are decades away from seeing a CV laid down.
    avatar
    mnztr


    Posts : 2682
    Points : 2720
    Join date : 2018-01-21

    Russia's naval doctrine and strategy - Page 2 Empty Re: Russia's naval doctrine and strategy

    Post  mnztr Tue Aug 04, 2020 7:26 pm

    SeigSoloyvov wrote:Russia would need destroyers before they can even think of building CV's, we are decades away from seeing a CV laid down.

    If Russia were to build a carrier fleet, how many would it build? 2? 3? The way the US approaches it is that they build at a rate to maintain the economics and supply chain. It takes 5-7 years to build one, and they last 50 years = fleet size approx.
    SeigSoloyvov
    SeigSoloyvov


    Posts : 3664
    Points : 3644
    Join date : 2016-04-08

    Russia's naval doctrine and strategy - Page 2 Empty Re: Russia's naval doctrine and strategy

    Post  SeigSoloyvov Tue Aug 04, 2020 7:35 pm

    mnztr wrote:
    SeigSoloyvov wrote:Russia would need destroyers before they can even think of building CV's, we are decades away from seeing a CV laid down.

    If Russia were to build a carrier fleet, how many would it build? 2? 3? The way the US approaches it is that they build at a rate to maintain the economics and supply chain. It takes 5-7 years to build one, and they last 50 years = fleet size approx.

    4 would be the ideal number, two for each major fleet one active and the other in overhaul for rotation.

    Russia doesn't really need tons of carriers, the reason the US favors them is because of our location on the world stage.

    Geoprahics heavily affect the size of your fleet and what you need
    LMFS
    LMFS


    Posts : 5088
    Points : 5084
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    Russia's naval doctrine and strategy - Page 2 Empty Re: Russia's naval doctrine and strategy

    Post  LMFS Tue Aug 04, 2020 9:09 pm

    mnztr wrote:The fact is, when a Russian ship heads out into the ocean, its is backed by the premise of "do you dare to risk war with Russia?"If the USN sinks the Russian surface fleet, Russia has hundreds of options to retaliate without going nuclear.

    Let us consider the downing of the Su-24 by Turkey, which represents a fairly similar event. First of all, it proved the point that some indeed are ready to see whether you are going to retaliate, and second, that it is incomparably better to have deterring capability in place than having to retaliate. What is it better, to have the plane downed, the pilots killed and the country divided between those who demand retaliation and those who want Russia to leave Syria, plus the inconvenience of having to impose huge sanctions against Turkey, or to have some S-400 and Su-35 in place? Lacking the deterring factor locally forces the attacked country out of their path of interest in order to answer to the provocation, while having it simply eliminates the provocation altogether.
    avatar
    mnztr


    Posts : 2682
    Points : 2720
    Join date : 2018-01-21

    Russia's naval doctrine and strategy - Page 2 Empty Re: Russia's naval doctrine and strategy

    Post  mnztr Tue Aug 04, 2020 9:25 pm

    LMFS wrote:
    mnztr wrote:The fact is, when a Russian ship heads out into the ocean, its is backed by the premise of "do you dare to risk war with Russia?"If the USN sinks the Russian surface fleet, Russia has hundreds of options to retaliate without going nuclear.

    Let us consider the downing of the Su-24 by Turkey, which represents a fairly similar event. First of all, it proved the point that some indeed are ready to see whether you are going to retaliate, and second, that it is incomparably better to have deterring capability in place than having to retaliate. What is it better, to have the plane downed, the pilots killed and the country divided between those who demand retaliation and those who want Russia to leave Syria, plus the inconvenience of having to impose huge sanctions against Turkey, or to have some S-400 and Su-35 in place? Lacking the deterring factor locally forces the attacked country out of their path of interest in order to answer to the provocation, while having it simply eliminates the provocation altogether.

    I don't think that was a good example. Firstly there was probably a group within Turkish AF that was anti Erdogan, pro CIA. I am sure Erdogan explained to Putin it was against his orders as well. Military power does not preclude sanctions. The US has a ginormous Navy yet they  announce sanctions every 5 minutes that hurt US commercial interests quite often. They also get hit by terror attacks quite frequently. Military power is limited. Many groups are simply not intemidated by it. So when you have the massive power of the US, and you are so hesitant to use it and cannot even defeat the Taliban, it becomes a huge joke.
    Isos
    Isos


    Posts : 11233
    Points : 11203
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Russia's naval doctrine and strategy - Page 2 Empty Re: Russia's naval doctrine and strategy

    Post  Isos Tue Aug 04, 2020 10:29 pm

    Russian answer to the su-24 downing was to give an Igla-S to the kurds who downed a Cobra hellicopter and killed its two crew members. And they forbid the syruan airspace to them. And they bombed syrian turks in the area for days with stratetigic bombers.

    They understood at the moment they better not fight the russians.

    US will never attack a russian ship no matter where it is. They didn't during the cold war, they won't now and they won't tommorrow. Even without a russian military answer they know russia could equip with nuks Iran or Venezuela or any other country that would be happy to use it against them. Or they could destroy european countries. Or they could destroy US economy by destroying arab oil production thus destroying european economy which is US bigest market.

    They have plenty of ways to retaliate without starting WW3 which would be the stupidest thing to do.

    Then europe also need a powerfull Russia to counter militarly both US and China.

    But Russia is also facing the same issue as US. Smaller countries that want to play a bigger role like Turkey or Saudi Arabia who started all the mess in their ally country (Syria). And for that they need a powerfull navy. And you can't do everything with cruise missiles and subs. A carrier is needed at some point if you want to be there for a long time.
    avatar
    walle83


    Posts : 968
    Points : 978
    Join date : 2016-11-13
    Location : Sweden

    Russia's naval doctrine and strategy - Page 2 Empty Re: Russia's naval doctrine and strategy

    Post  walle83 Tue Aug 04, 2020 10:37 pm

    GarryB wrote:

    Building ships is nothing... if Russia was just building Sovremmeny class ships and Udaloys they could have made them in large numbers too... there is more to ship building than making an aerodynamic shell that looks modern and then filling it with copies of weapons you have licence produced...

    Russia couldnt even finish the ships they started building during the USSR, they sold two of them to China.
    They couldnt even finish some simple frigates for over 10 years.
    So no they couldnt build destroyers in large numbers, not even old Udaloys and Sovremennys. Heck they even have problems keeping the few they have in working order.
    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion


    Posts : 5824
    Points : 5780
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Russia's naval doctrine and strategy - Page 2 Empty Re: Russia's naval doctrine and strategy

    Post  Tsavo Lion Tue Aug 04, 2020 11:04 pm

    Like Russia, but on a smaller scale, France has widely separated fleets; she also has possessions in S. America, Caribbean & all the oceans except the Arctic. The Gr. Britain also has possessions in all the oceans except the Arctic. Nevertheless, both have no need for more than 1-2 CV/Ns to protect their trade, show the flag & bomb developing countries.
    India will have 2-3 carriers but her subcontinent is vulnerable, with mountains/deserts on the north/west dominated by China & Pakistan.
    Even if India & her allies block the Malacca strait, Chinese & Pakistani subs will still be in the Indian Ocean, just like the VMF subs in the Med. Sea.
    OTH, Russia dominates Eurasia & doesn't need to waste $ on more than 1-2 CVNs & their escorts.
    Big_Gazza
    Big_Gazza


    Posts : 4554
    Points : 4546
    Join date : 2014-08-25
    Location : Melbourne, Australia

    Russia's naval doctrine and strategy - Page 2 Empty Re: Russia's naval doctrine and strategy

    Post  Big_Gazza Wed Aug 05, 2020 2:38 pm

    walle83 wrote:Russia couldnt even finish the ships they started building during the USSR, they sold two of them to China.
    They couldnt even finish some simple frigates for over 10 years.
    So no they couldnt build destroyers in large numbers, not even old Udaloys and Sovremennys. Heck they even have problems keeping the few they have in working order.

    The 2x Krechet class aviation cruisers sold to China (Kiev and Minsk) had ~20 years of service behind them, so they hardly qualify as "unfinished".

    As for frigates, the 11356s took ~5 years from laying down keels to acceptance into service.  22350s took longer for reasons we've debated umpteen fecking times before, such as Ukropistani spite and stupidity.

    Gratz on winning the idiot of the day award...    pwnd

    GarryB likes this post

    GarryB
    GarryB


    Posts : 38473
    Points : 38973
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Russia's naval doctrine and strategy - Page 2 Empty Re: Russia's naval doctrine and strategy

    Post  GarryB Wed Aug 05, 2020 3:35 pm

    Sorry there is no way Russia was ready at the time (1947) to build a more advanced plane then the TU-04.

    Oh please... the Soviet B-29 had nothing like the range needed to fly from Russian air space to the US with anything like a useful payload... at best it could reach most of Europe and Japan that had already been devastated by war anyway.

    The Russians had a range of heavy four engined bombers that were state of the art when they were built even if they do look archaic now.... the Pe-8 looks every bit as modern as any bomber the British built during WWII.

    Stalin had savaged the aerospace industry with his purges and while Tupolev may have been able to design a superior airframe, I doubt at the time they could have surpassed or matched the engine tech.

    Yeah, you say that like the Tu-4 was actually a carbon copy of the B-29 when it wasn't. The Shvetsov ASh-73 was an evolution of an American engine but not related to the engine in the B-29 and was already in use in the Pe-8 four engined bomber.

    They worked on all sorts of improvements but the engine itself like the plane was a dead end.

    Their performance was completely inferior to the Tu-16s that replaced them... they had to make special models to carry the Soviet nukes of the time... they were pointless exercises in propaganda. In 1956 the Bear replaced them being a bomber with the range and payload to actually threaten the US...

    Not sure if the TU-04 has the computerized guns. Russia has a history of brilliant people supressed by their political system and culture.

    The simple act of replacing all the pea shooter 50 cals with proper 20mm cannon the Tu-4 had gun defence vastly superior to US models... American 20mm cannon were rather poor in comparison till they got their gatlings... and by then the Soviets were already using 23mm and 30mm guns.

    Even the brilliant Mig-15 would not have been possible without British engine tech. (neither would the Saber for that matter).

    You mean like the Mustang was junk until they replaced the Allison engine with a Merlin?

    The point is that the window with the British engines was quickly shut, but they have managed well enough ever since.

    They are in no way dependent on Britain for jet engines today.

    Kaliber missiles are not very useful for opposed landings where you need saturated and very timely strikes.

    That is why their corvettes have 100mm guns and their frigates have 130mm guns... and I suspect their Destroyers and some landing support vessels might have 152mm guns... perhaps even 203mm for cruisers if we are lucky.

    That is, - MASS. STOBAR launches simply cannot carry the payload of CATOBAR, but even with a ramp a MIG29 can carry much more payload then a KA-52 and deliver it faster with a much higher sortie rate.

    It is the 2020s not the 1920s... A MiG-29 carrying GROM bombs should get airborne fairly easily if needed, and STOBAR does not require setting up Steam cats for each take off... aircraft can be set up to take off from each of the 4 takeoff positions and then launched in order and so it continues.

    If you consider how much ordinance a MIG-29 or Okhotnik can deliver in 1 day vs a KA-52..that is your decider.

    If you make careful preparations then the landing should be largely unopposed so turning the beach into the surface of the moon is not a key strategy.

    The MiG-29s will be providing top cover and shooting down enemy drones and missiles directed at the landed forces and the ships and also taking on any CAS aircraft or enemy helos that might be detected. Helicopters will be landing troops and supporting landed troops by directing their fire at enemy forces rather than just making craters in the sand.

    They do have landing ships designed to launch a barrage of unguided artillery rockets to prepare a beach for "landing", but ideally a huge smoke screen and speed is the best solution.

    Its not right to say if a MIG-29 or KA-52 is more useful. It really depends on the situation. A KA-52 is not gonna be useful for delivering troops either. In fact its a pretty single minded beast.

    They do totally different but necessary jobs... the MiG-29 would be combat air patrol and air superiority, while the Ka-52 is a scout/attack helo that will be looking for targets and engaging them at extended ranges... and supporting troops landed by Ka-29 or Minoga or boat.

    As for AWACS the Chinese carrier based AWACS is imminent. For now they probably use HELOs.

    My understanding is that they have bought lots of Ka-31s, but they might have modified a domestic type as well...

    SSBNs can prevent it or deliver retaliation;

    No, they can only retaliate...

    SSNs & SSKs r needed to protect them, besides participating in peacetime ops & local wars.

    Not directly, otherwise the enemy can just identify locations where your subs all operate and launch a dozen SLBM warheads to detonate in the water... all equally spaced 10-20km apart to vapourise everything.

    He isn't implying that subs alone can win any war.

    He is saying forget having a world wide naval presence.... lets just curl up in a ball and take all the shit the west can deal and don't think of being able to think or act for ourselves...

    Russia has road mobile ICBMs & may revive BM trains.

    They do, but I am not using that as an excuse to say SSBNs are expensive... Russia should just get rid of all its subs... I mean if it is not acting outside of Russian waters then WTF does it need billions of dollars worth of SSNs and SSBNs... a few SSKs for coastal water defence will be fine... except that creates the same problem... without the global reach of SSNs then Russian surface ships would be too vulnerable to enemy subs AND enemy aircraft to be confident to operate safely on their own.

    If Russia needs anything she doesn't have, or it's too expensive to extract/produce, she has a long borders with former Soviet Republics, China (which in turn borders on SE Asia & Pakistan which borders on India & Iran which borders on the Caspian Sea & Azerbaijan which borders on Russia) & Mongolia- they can supply her with the same or similar goods that r worth buying from Africa & L. América.

    Which means regime change in each of those places and Russia is our pussy. They are already actively trying it in Iran and Syria and Turkey as we speak and the hostility to China.... haven't you noticed?

    As in the Soviet times, they can do w/o plenty of bananas, coffee & cacao. Georgian tea & wine can be transported via the Black Sea, air & land.

    Fuck Georgian wine and tea... why support those bastards? How about trading with countries that are not actively attacking or trying to destroy them... like countries outside of HATO... if you want to buy from middle men you pay the price they offer, and they can cut you off any time they like.

    Russia is nearly 100% self contained & sufficient; she doesn't depend on overseas trade & SLOCs as China, UK, France, SK, Japan & the Americas. (Btw Japan will become a continental nation after roads r built to Sakhalin & Hokkaido- making her dependent on Russia for land route to Europe. Then, the US will be shown the door.)

    You talk about self contained and self sufficient, but you are talking the same game as the US... encircle them and isolate them... then destroy them... or in this case they destroy themselves.

    Russia is probably the only country on the planet that could do well if completely cut off... food and energy self sufficient, if the Russian people could put up with it then they would be fine... the North Korean and Cuban people put up with it but being smaller countries they needed outside support to avoid famine and serious deprivation... North Korea would prefer famine than surrender to the Americans. Most European countries wouldn't last 5 minutes under the same duress.

    Russia should not allow itself to be isolated. It can't change its land borders but it can use the sea to reach the entire planet... there are plenty of countries that will buy Russian natural gas and wont try to screw them with stupid local laws about suppliers and pipe owners and such like. Those countries might start out just buying energy, but GM free and Steroid free food is appealing too and Russia makes certain food types and place around the world make all sorts of different food types... trading means more variety and both can make money and develop. Russia might be able to help with electricity production and major construction projects... Russia has been building a lot of roads recently and rail lines, and of course they make excellent weapons too...

    The bottom line is that CVNs r not worth as much, if at all, to Russia as to the US, UK & China. She doesn't have possessions in Hawaii, California & Alaska anymore; $ from its sale were used to build railroads in Siberia, not the blue water navy.

    You are not getting it. US CVNs are for invasion and bombing and destroying and murdering, British ones and French ones are to ensure they get their way... whether it is in the Falklands or some other stolen piece of territory they have decided they want to keep because there is oil or other valuables there.
    For Russia a CV or a CVN is for protecting Russian surface ships and subs beyond the range of Russian land based air power and support.

    It is not about bombing and regime change... that is the game of the west... it is to ensure the safety of Russian subs or ships or both in international waters by providing air cover and early warning of low level or stealthy attacks against the ships or subs. It is a way of getting lots of helicopters together too on a ship equipped as a command vessel.

    It really depends on who the opponent is. Against NATO/China no way. All others depends on how far you are willing to go. Destroy Navy, blockade and mine, use Kaliber to destroy all runways, decaptitation strikes and start taking out infrastructure. Game over..if necessary threaten nukes. = surrender

    I thought I was being clear by calling it a world war... so basically HATO. I wouldn't call a conflict with China or India a world war.

    If the US decides to blockade Venezuela Russia can send Russian flagged vessels escorted by subs.

    What is the sub going to do when the Russian flagged vessels get boarded by US Marines from helicopters... a Russian flag offers no protection if you don't have a navy...

    It doesn't mean anything if the Russian Navy does not have a global presence via cruisers and destroyers and to make them safe aircraft carriers.

    They can also provide Venezuela with means to fight back against it with KH-31s.

    How do they get them to them? That is like giving a black guy a knife when he is getting hassled by the police in the US...

    The use of Kaliber from the Caspian sea was a very powerful message that Russia can put ships into a sea that is 100% inaccessible to the USN and still strike USN targets in highly strategic areas.

    And by only building Covettes and Frigates you are sending another message... we spent big money making amazing weapons but we are pussies and we don't want to leave home port.... fuck our commercial ships world wide because we are not going to do shit about it.

    A submarine is not a useful weapon in peace time... it is only effective when it is hidden and when it is hidden it is of no use in peace time.

    Say the US stop a Russian transport ship and says turn around you can't go to Venezuela... what is the Russian sub going to do?

    Sink a US ship?

    Submarines are hand grenades... they are not to talk quietly to sort it out... it is just bang.... now some people are dead and this shit just got really serious.... because surfacing a sub wont get that freighter through the blockade, but it will get practise depth charges fired at you and lots of ships chasing you around with active sonar practising WWIII... none of which is good.

    In comparison a Russian carrier group arrives for a planned exercise and the Americans are not going to board a carrier and tell the captain to turn around.

    The Kaliber missile housed in a container is also a nasty little beast. If the USN stops a Venezuelan flagged vessel...who knows what is in the container? SURPRISE!!!

    The thing is that it is meaningless until you use it and once you use it a civilian container ship is real easy to sink... torpedo in the middle will do it.

    With a Russian carrier group no shots need to be fired... the Americans know it is their back yard, but then the Baltic States and georgia and ukraine and belarus are Russias technical back yard and the US has been pissing in that water for decades...

    Russian CVNs means Russia can show strength without starting WWIII, but assert her own interests around the world.

    No country is going to trade with Russia if Russia can't turn up with a navy to defend them from the western backlash or giving up the kool aide.

    Subs may not be able to defeat NATO or China, but they can make the cost of war incredibly high and also make a war against Russia unwinnable.

    A war against Russia is already unwinnable. I am not saying get rid of submarines... I am saying they are only good for war on their own, which makes them less useful than a carrier and cruisers and destroyers that can perform visits to countries around the world and spread the word that Russians are not what the western media likes to depict.

    Unfortunately it also makes Russia pretty intimidating as a partner at the trade and commercial level.

    I disagree... it is the fact that Russia can't reach the rest of the world by any other means than the sea and her navy has been neglected that is holding her back.

    If Russia had any brains they would block off all train and road and air links to the EU and refuse to allow the transport of goods to the EU from Asia or vice versa... and Russia should then offer to sell to Asia what they were buying from the EU, and say to the EU you can only buy our products and not stuff from Asia.

    Russia does not benefit from the North Sea Route or the Nord Stream II or South Stream as much as the EU does... they should be adding tarrifs and imposing sanctions instead...

    1) During the US-Japan war in the 1940s they actually had a function. Now they have zero in any
    engagement between military superpowers. This is the critical point, they are no longer useful for
    serious war that will transition to nuclear exchanges.

    I agree... building CVNs to fight WWIII would be stupid.

    I am saying that if you want to operate world wide you need bigger ships than Frigates. Frigates and even Corvettes could sail around the world just find but it would be like touring the world on bicycle... and might I add when they do it on TV you don't see the 20 trucks full of gear and cameras and shit they carry... you just see the bikers having fun.
    If you want to be able to do as you please then you need a navy with destroyers and cruisers... but even the best equipped destroyer and cruiser is the equivalent of SAM batteries and air defence gun units and a few artillery regiments and maybe a helicopter unit... if the enemy has any air power then you are fucked, because they will find your range and contain you and knock off any support ships supplying your forces.... and in the case of a lot of countries just getting you to split up so each part can be attacked and overwhelmed will make even the best ship vulnerable.

    An Aircraft carrier means extra depth and warning and reach for your air defence... it increases the range of your sight and your claws if needed, but it also increases your mobility... there are fast ships but none can go supersonic.... and even the cheapest smallest Corvette costs more than quite a few MiG-29KR aircraft and you likely wont have many Corvettes on the other side of the planet... sending two or four planes to investigate a dot on the radar screen is faster and cheaper than sending a destroyer or a helicopter... and two or four fighters should be better able to defend themselves than a helicopter or two.

    What is the value of knowing that dot is an Airbus 320 and not the F-14 you thought it might be... doesn't that make surface groups more effective with accurate information?

    I remember when it happened and the news described the AEGIS as state of the art in terms of radar... it had what they called at the time independent target ID... the radars were so amazing it could count the turbine blades in the engine of the target and independently identify the target based on that "signature".

    Of course it turned out to be bullshit... they identified a climbing civilian Airbus as being a descending F-14 fighter.... if only they could have sent a fighter plane to investigate it properly... instead 289 people got murdered that day.

    2) Corollary of the above is that they serve zero purpose for Russia as a tool of national defense.

    Russia needs to expand beyond its borders if it wants to be commercially successful. China is doing it via investment because they have plenty of money and are buying up resources etc around the world. Russia needs to do something similar... make their presence in the market known... for most countries around the world all they know is the west and part of what they know is having to change their local laws so western companies can strip mine the country, or use it as a cheap labour supply with expendable workers that get replaced when damaged or start asking for more money...

    3) The US has been using its aircraft carriers as 3rd world colonial enforcement. The cheesy Hollywood
    movies about space colonial marines highlights this aspect of US military "prowess".

    That is true... and if the Russian Navy made it clear that is what it wanted them for then I would totally agree with you... but they don't.

    The Russian surface ships have excellent IADS, but it lacks an airforce to add depth and extend range of vision reliably... they also carry a lot of helicopters which can be useful against subs too.

    Since Russia is not planning to terrorize developing countries, it does not need aircraft carriers. I have not seen
    a serious case made for them. And the fact that "journalists" and pundits keep raising the wave the flag
    argument demonstrates any lack of substance.

    Nobody needs aircraft carriers... the British could have retaken the Falkland Islands without aircraft carriers, but they would have lost 10 times more ships that would have cost them 3-4 times more than the Ark Royal cost them...

    Russian carriers are not strike carriers to bomb countries, they are CAP and AWACS platforms to keep Russian surface action groups safe away from Russian airspace.

    Isn't it curious how stubborn this discussion is? The only point that I would really love people to understand is that air power in the naval domain is as important as for land based forces.

    It is ironic... KVS is the last one I would think would be taken in by western propaganda, but it seems to him a full sized fixed wing aircraft carrier is a weapon of colonialism and has no other practical use... because that is what the only user of full sized fixed wing aircraft carriers uses them for... ie the US.

    Nobody in its right mind would defend armed forces to do without air power on land, but interestingly some people automatically reject the notion of Russia having aircraft carriers, which is the only way to guarantee access to air power far from Russia. Interestingly, this concern about proper budget use applies only to Russia while the rest of small and big powers in this world keep planning and building carriers without any significant questioning.

    Indeed, they are now building 8 Yasen and 4 (soon 6) Borei, + Belgorod & Khavarovsk, plus all the 636.3 and 677. Nobody is denying the importance of subs in the VMF, but interestingly the security of those is in question precisely because there aren't enough surface groups to ensure NATO ASW forces stay far enough from them. This is actually a major concern for SSBN forces in the North Fleet, I am not making this up.

    Exactly. A good surface fleet present in the relevant hot spots at the right time is the best and cheapest remedy against wars and interference.

    Yeah, the first step of renewed Russian blue water fleet with deterring potential depends on the Nakhimov and Tsirkon combo. They will manage with those two until the 22350M and eventually the Lider appear, but in the medium term a couple of CVNs is needed.

    They are not going to get a two CVN and the Kuznetsov CV fleet any time soon... the CV will be back in the water about 2025 and so will the two Kirovs hopefully, and perhaps a Slava or two might be ready then with the two or three others going in for an upgrade straight afterwards. That is about 6 cruisers, and upgrades to the Udaloy should start producing some destroyers too, but once Frigates and Corvettes are in full production the scaled up Frigate in the form of perhaps the first few light destroyers with perhaps a heavier better armed model being produced after that followed by cruisers to start replacing the upgraded old ones... by 2027 or so they might want to lay down the first new CVN... though making two at once might be cheaper too... Either way they wont have three CV(N)s before about 2036 or so... and spread over that sort of period the costs wont be that bad.

    Don't scrimp on the planes though... Su-57 or the new light MiGs.... no screwy VSTOLs...

    The planes are the edge of the sword... use cheap crappy steel and it wont stay sharp for long enough to keep you alive.

    But what the article says about carrier being only useful to attack unsophisticated nations is somewhat true.

    Wrong. To get around the worlds oceans, Russian ships... both military and commercial, have to move through dangerous waters... whether it is because pirates attack ships, or because the UK or France or the US think it is their backyard and you can stay out... despite it being international waters.

    The Carriers purpose is to keep surface ships and subs safe... any invasion would require the Ivan Rogov landing craft and lots of cruise missiles.... the aircraft from the carrier wont be bombing much... more likely shooting down enemy aircraft and keeping the ships safe from attack.

    Do you think the UK could have built an empire without its Navy? Do you think anyone would listen to the US if they didn't put a carrier nearby?

    Who is going to trade with Russia if she can't send any ships to help when the US funded coup starts a war?

    Russian carriers in a direct confrontation with NATO or China would be just about useful as US carriers...i.e future reefs. It only may work in proxy wars of strategic importance.

    Russian carriers could create an air bubble of defence over Russian surface ships and subs... Russian carriers will likely carry the naval equivalent of the S-500 when it is ready... but everyone still loses, so in that sense it wont make much of a difference.

    The fact is, when a Russian ship heads out into the ocean, its is backed by the premise of "do you dare to risk war with Russia?"If the USN sinks the Russian surface fleet, Russia has hundreds of options to retaliate without going nuclear.

    And what if the Ukraine sells a batch of Neptune missiles to the Kurds or ISIS or some other group that does not give a shit about Russia for use against Russian ships. The old Kh-35 is not a new weapon but it is not a bad weapon either... Somali pirates took Russian flagged ships.

    BTW the "you dare risk war with Russia" means fuck all if you live in central or south America or Africa and you know Russia only has subs and Corvettes and Frigates so they wont come here for long...

    But lets give you the benefit of the doubt and say after having a ship hijacked they send a frigate to take it back... that frigate is going to be very vulnerable to almost any sort of air threat from missiles to planes and subs...

    Or they can nuke US bases that are not on the US mainland and based in nations that have no nukes. Sink US shipping, mine US ports, attack US investments abroad etc etc. War with Russia is just not feasible. The US is in the process of surrendering to the Taliban, I think they know they cannot handle Russia.

    Yeah... war against Russia wont happen because Russia has nukes... tell that to the dead VDV soldiers in their base in South Ossetia, and in Syria I guess ISIS does not fire at Russian troops because Russia will nuke them... didn't the Soviets have nukes when they had troops in Afghanistan in the 1980s?

    Nukes are a blunt instrument that really need a serious reason to use... you can't just use them because HATO has moved troops to your border and has big exercises every year to practise invading you.

    Russia would need destroyers before they can even think of building CV's, we are decades away from seeing a CV laid down.

    Half agree... they will likely be laying down destroyers in the next 5 years and in 8-10 years will have started laying down at least one CVN IMHO.

    If Russia were to build a carrier fleet, how many would it build? 2? 3? The way the US approaches it is that they build at a rate to maintain the economics and supply chain. It takes 5-7 years to build one, and they last 50 years = fleet size approx.

    I would think one per fleet for the Northern and Pacific fleet would be a start, with the Kuznetsov as a training ship probably based in the Pacific.

    They would each have 2-3 cruisers to operate with them... a Kirov and two Slavas and then three new Cruisers, plus a few destroyers each... the new Russian CVNs will have Redut and UKSK-M and S-500... it wont be a conventional carrier like the Nimitz Ford... it will manage the air defence of the surface group...

    I honestly don't think they would need more than that unless they have a problem and want to retire the K early and build an extra CVN so no matter what upgrades and servicing happens they will have at least one carrier available and most often two for operational use.

    4 would be the ideal number, two for each major fleet one active and the other in overhaul for rotation.

    Four would provide more reliable coverage, but I think they could get away with three... most situations they wont need more than one if they are 90K ton carriers.

    [qutoe]Russia doesn't really need tons of carriers, the reason the US favors them is because of our location on the world stage.[/quote]

    The US wants a finger in every pie so they need lots of carriers located around the world so no matter where the problem is they can get at least a carrier group there in a few hours. Russia doesn't have or need that... remember in addition to the 10-12 full sized carriers they also have marine carriers in significant numbers too... Russia would be economically crushed trying to match that and they don't have the bases around the world to make it work to their advantage anyway.

    [Geoprahics heavily affect the size of your fleet and what you need

    The mentality comes in to it as well... Russia just wants free trade and access to the whole world... while the US wants to control the world by dominating the sea lanes of trade and communication.

    I don't think that was a good example. Firstly there was probably a group within Turkish AF that was anti Erdogan, pro CIA. I am sure Erdogan explained to Putin it was against his orders as well.

    That would be tricky when Erdogan went on TV when it happened and claimed it was his plan.

    After the US fucked up their attempt to remove him from power he probably said to Putin.... what a mistake I have made... lets improve relations... what concessions would you like in Syria... can I buy more gas from you... can I buy S-400s too.

    [quoteMilitary power does not preclude sanctions. The US has a ginormous Navy yet they announce sanctions every 5 minutes that hurt US commercial interests quite often. They also get hit by terror attacks quite frequently. Military power is limited. Many groups are simply not intemidated by it. So when you have the massive power of the US, and you are so hesitant to use it and cannot even defeat the Taliban, it becomes a huge joke.[/quote]

    You forget that military power is both a hard and a soft power.

    The US has barely fired a shot at North Korea and Cuba but look at how isolated they are... Iran and Venezuela have been largely ostracised by the west... ironically while the EU seems to continue to support Iran and the deal the EU countries are pulling out of contracts with Iran for fear of sanctions from the US... which means while the EU seems to be friends with Iran in actual fact they are worse than the US... at least the US is honest that it is putting sanctions on Iran... the EU is pretending to be investing in Iran but it is not yet it still expects Iran to follow its part of the deal to the letter.... it was supposed to be Iran stops with the nukes and the parties that signed the deal invest in Iran, well the US and EU are not investing but are both demanding Iran follows the deal anyway...

    Even without a russian military answer they know russia could equip with nuks Iran or Venezuela or any other country that would be happy to use it against them.

    Russia does not want Iran or Venezuela to have nukes any more than the west does... but I understand what you mean.

    The problem is that the US will overthrow governments and send entire countries into war and anarchy... Syria, Libya, Ukraine, Belarus?

    Saying they wont attack a Russian ship... not an armed one, but they kidnapped Russian nationals and absconded them to the US for trial on BS charges because they wouldn't cooperate in some dastardly plan to destroy Putin.

    But Russia is also facing the same issue as US. Smaller countries that want to play a bigger role like Turkey or Saudi Arabia who started all the mess in their ally country (Syria). And for that they need a powerfull navy. And you can't do everything with cruise missiles and subs. A carrier is needed at some point if you want to be there for a long time.

    Just to allow Russian companies to freely trade with any other country on the planet they need to be able to use the sea and as was shown in Kosovo and in Georgia... the US will bend international opinion to the view that no matter what the facts... Russia is to blame... so while boarding and taking over a ship in international waters is a crime... it will be OK if it is a Russian ship... we can make up all sorts of bullshit stories about what they are carrying to justify anything we like. Russia needs to be able to assert her interests anywhere at sea and there is ample evidence she can't rely on the US or British or French navy to do it for her or help in any way except help make it worse.

    Russia couldnt even finish the ships they started building during the USSR, they sold two of them to China.

    They had no use for them... and it wasn't Russia because they weren't in Russian shipyards.

    Russia had lots of ships it didn't need... it sold a few ships to China, and I am sure China learned a few things from them too.

    They couldnt even finish some simple frigates for over 10 years.

    They had other priorities.

    So no they couldnt build destroyers in large numbers, not even old Udaloys and Sovremennys. Heck they even have problems keeping the few they have in working order.

    You are certainly entitled to your opinion but lets compare China from the time of the USSR to now... no change at all?

    Like Russia, but on a smaller scale, France has widely separated fleets; she also has possessions in S. America, Caribbean & all the oceans except the Arctic. The Gr. Britain also has possessions in all the oceans except the Arctic. Nevertheless, both have no need for more than 1-2 CV/Ns to protect their trade, show the flag & bomb developing countries.
    India will have 2-3 carriers but her subcontinent is vulnerable, with mountains/deserts on the north/west dominated by China & Pakistan.
    Even if India & her allies block the Malacca strait, Chinese & Pakistani subs will still be in the Indian Ocean, just like the VMF subs in the Med. Sea.
    OTH, Russia dominates Eurasia & doesn't need to waste $ on more than 1-2 CVNs & their escorts.

    I am sorry, but this is very frustrating. I am suggesting Russia should have aircraft carriers to protect her surface ships and submarines when operating beyond the land based air power she has developed to defend her land borders and some people just read beep beep beep Russia needs 150K ton carriers just like the Ford class but even bigger and they need 20 of them and they need them a week next tuesday... beep beep beep. Because they can defeat the US and HATO if they have bigger aircraft carriers becuase Russia has always based its defence against foreign enemies with its air power fixation.... don't believe EU lies it was air power that stopped Napoleon in his tracks... he never made it to Moscow... that was actually just the party afterwards that did that damage... you know how Ruskies can drink...
    LMFS
    LMFS


    Posts : 5088
    Points : 5084
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    Russia's naval doctrine and strategy - Page 2 Empty Re: Russia's naval doctrine and strategy

    Post  LMFS Wed Aug 05, 2020 7:21 pm

    GarryB wrote:Nobody needs aircraft carriers...

    This is true, in general nobody needs a navy, since we are terrestrial mammals that life on land and not in the sea... the argument that Russia does not need carriers could be easily extended to the VMF altogether and it could still be made the case that Russia can survive and defend themselves with no fleet at all. It would still be demagogic and short-sighted though  Razz

    It is ironic... KVS is the last one I would think would be taken in by western propaganda, but it seems to him a full sized fixed wing aircraft carrier is a weapon of colonialism and has no other practical use... because that is what the only user of full sized fixed wing aircraft carriers uses them for... ie the US.

    This is an incredibly pervasive argument. It has been turned into some kind of identity trait to reject CVNs as a symbol of imperialism. We need to learn to detach cold facts and objective military analysis from emotional implications.

    We have IMO a good example of the limitations of land (or surface for that matter) based AD vs air power in Syria, where the Israeli can allow themselves to play cat and mouse with the Syrian AD with practical impunity. What would happen if they had to face modern fighters permanently on station and ready to engage / pursuit them as soon as they initiate any potentially hostile action? For a fast fighter it is trivial to stay at the fringes of the SAMs engagement range and retreat at the slightest sign of detection or missile launch. That is not the case when a similarly fast jet is monitoring the country's air space from above and ready to pound on any trespasser. In other terms, without it the land based systems remain only in the receiving end and deprived of initiative, and therefore destined to lose.

    They are not going to get a two CVN and the Kuznetsov CV fleet any time soon... the CV will be back in the water about 2025

    Well it is supposed it will come back in 2022... we can discuss whether we believe that but they insist to this date that will be the case  Rolling Eyes

    and so will the two Kirovs hopefully, and perhaps a Slava or two might be ready then with the two or three others going in for an upgrade straight afterwards.

    The Peter the Great will probably follow Nakhimov, so they will have to manage with just one of them for many years (the kind of modernization they are doing is a huge amount of work). Then there are just 3x 1164 left, among them the Moskva which has just been reworked... not much but if properly used and added to the rest of new weapons being deployed, it should be enough in the short term.

    by 2027 or so they might want to lay down the first new CVN...

    Yeah they will need to get 22350 in numbers and 22350M in production to start thinking about that. Probably this will be left for the next armaments program, in the meantime the priority is to get basic functions covered and soviet ships substituted. Tsirkon allows them to extend the validity period of the current navy model for some years, afterwards the carrier is needed. Serious work on a naval Su-57 only after the second stage is ready for VKS IMHO, any other option would take even longer.

    Agree on the rest Wink

    Sponsored content


    Russia's naval doctrine and strategy - Page 2 Empty Re: Russia's naval doctrine and strategy

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Fri Feb 23, 2024 1:21 am