Questions Thread: Russian Navy

George1 wrote:

AlfaT8 wrote:

George1 wrote:Here are the specifications in the Rosoboronexport catalog

http://roe.ru/eng/catalog/naval-systems/surface-ships-ships-and-boats/korsar/

Thx man, i noticed something odd in this catalog, according to the catalog the Grigorovich doesn't have Sigma it uses something called Trebovanie-M, while the Gepard 3.9 does use Sigma??

Is this the same with the domestic variant of the Grigorovich?

Yes the same type of ship. Concerning the battle management system i have noticed in some cases that is offered either Trebovanie-M or Sigma, for example for 22356 export project:
http://www.oaoosk.ru/en/products/project-22356

How strange.
Its optional, i guess.

The KORSAR project is the unfinished 3rd Neustrashymy class frigate TAMAN.
The Russian Navy does not want it. Construction of the Taman was halted. The ship was launched at Yantar (Kaliningrad) in incomplete form. It is offered for export in various configurations all under the name KORSAR.
No buyer was found. The unfinished ship will be scrapped.

Is it atleast theoretically possible to use SS-N-20 and SS-N-23 missiles of the Delta IV and Typhoon class SSBN in the anti-ship role ?

From what I could find their CEP is 500 m , this may not be accurate enough to hit an individual shipon the high seas but what about exploding it about the location of the SAG, knocking out the ECM and making it more vulnerable to cruise missile strikes ?

These SLBM had multiple MIRV, could they increase the changes of having a nuclear blast as close to the location of a SAG as possible ?

nastle77 wrote:Is it atleast theoretically possible to use SS-N-20 and SS-N-23 missiles of the Delta IV and Typhoon class SSBN in the anti-ship role ?

.........

Theoretically yes (a lot of stuff is possible in theory) but practically why bother?

You have far better platforms for dealing with surface threats (nukes and all) and Deltas have more important roles to fulfill.

They do have 3 older Deltas that are deemed too noisy even for SSBNs but it would make more sense to convert them into land attack ships by installing Kalibr LACMs instead of ICBMs. Far better than scraping them (they still sail and dive no problem)

It would also trim down their crew complement significantly, probably operational costs as well. They would be very useful for dealing with low priority third world issues.

PapaDragon wrote:

nastle77 wrote:Is it atleast theoretically possible to use SS-N-20 and SS-N-23 missiles of the Delta IV and Typhoon class SSBN in the anti-ship role ?

.........

Theoretically yes (a lot of stuff is possible in theory) but practically why bother?

You have far better platforms for dealing with surface threats (nukes and all) and Deltas have more important roles to fulfill.

They do have 3 older Deltas that are deemed too noisy even for SSBNs but it would make more sense to convert them into land attack ships by installing Kalibr LACMs instead of ICBMs. Far better than scraping them (they still sail and dive no problem)

It would also trim down their crew complement significantly, probably operational costs as well. They would be very useful for dealing with low priority third world issues.

Would it not be worth it if an entire SAG is wiped out by a single and couple of SSN20 missiles
Esp if other platforms have been destroyed by the enemy like slava sovermenny nanuchka etc

nastle77 wrote:

PapaDragon wrote:

nastle77 wrote:Is it atleast theoretically possible to use SS-N-20 and SS-N-23 missiles of the Delta IV and Typhoon class SSBN in the anti-ship role ?

.........

Theoretically yes (a lot of stuff is possible in theory) but practically why bother?

You have far better platforms for dealing with surface threats (nukes and all) and Deltas have more important roles to fulfill.

They do have 3 older Deltas that are deemed too noisy even for SSBNs but it would make more sense to convert them into land attack ships by installing Kalibr LACMs instead of ICBMs. Far better than scraping them (they still sail and dive no problem)

It would also trim down their crew complement significantly, probably operational costs as well. They would be very useful for dealing with low priority third world issues.

Would it not be worth it if an entire SAG is wiped out by a single and couple of  SSN20 missiles
Esp if other platforms have been destroyed by the enemy like slava sovermenny nanuchka etc

What you describe is full blown nuclear war. If it comes to that Navies will be pretty irelevant.

PapaDragon wrote:

nastle77 wrote:

PapaDragon wrote:

nastle77 wrote:Is it atleast theoretically possible to use SS-N-20 and SS-N-23 missiles of the Delta IV and Typhoon class SSBN in the anti-ship role ?

.........

Theoretically yes (a lot of stuff is possible in theory) but practically why bother?

You have far better platforms for dealing with surface threats (nukes and all) and Deltas have more important roles to fulfill.

They do have 3 older Deltas that are deemed too noisy even for SSBNs but it would make more sense to convert them into land attack ships by installing Kalibr LACMs instead of ICBMs. Far better than scraping them (they still sail and dive no problem)

It would also trim down their crew complement significantly, probably operational costs as well. They would be very useful for dealing with low priority third world issues.

Would it not be worth it if an entire SAG is wiped out by a single and couple of  SSN20 missiles
Esp if other platforms have been destroyed by the enemy like slava sovermenny nanuchka etc

What you describe is full blown nuclear war. If it comes to that Navies will be pretty irelevant.

Not if the other side has no nukes
Is it possible militarily?

nastle77 wrote:

PapaDragon wrote:....................
What you describe is full blown nuclear war. If it comes to that Navies will be pretty irelevant.

Not if the other side has no nukes
Is it possible militarily?

I don't think any side out there has navy that big without nukes other than Japan. But going full Armageddon on some medium sized navy would be total overkill.

I mean if they wanted to they could incinerate region of the ocean where targets are with either nuke sub or land based ICBM without a problem but why? Especially if it is a non-nuclear military.

Even nuk warehead need to explode near a ship to destroy it. All modern ships have NBC protection so they are safe if the explosion occure too far. I don't think intercontinantal missile could be reprogrammed to follow a moving ship. The flight is like 20-30 minutes, if a ship goes at 50km/h it will move 25 km for this time so it is safe.

RS-28 Sarmat should be able to handle ships; satellites can ascertain their bearing and speed; giving their position in 15 minutes time - and this would be enough time for a Sarmat to get there.

As I understand it has a manuevering bus with about 3 kinetic kill warheads on board that it can release along its flight-path. The idea is these vehicles can bust a silo wide-open; but since this is basically the Russian equivalent of America's global strike doctrine and with the same capabilities; there's no reason why they can't be used for precision strikes against targets of any nature anywhere in the world.

PapaDragon wrote:

nastle77 wrote:

PapaDragon wrote:....................
What you describe is full blown nuclear war. If it comes to that Navies will be pretty irelevant.

Not if the other side has no nukes
Is it possible militarily?

I don't think any side out there has navy that big without nukes other than Japan. But going full Armageddon on some medium sized navy would be total overkill.

I mean if they wanted to they could incinerate region of the ocean where targets are with either nuke sub or land based ICBM without a problem but why? Especially if it is a non-nuclear military.

Well the impression i got from posters on another US forum was that without using nukes soviet pacific fleet would be slaughtered by Japan navy like a repeat of 1904
Thats why i asked this question

Isos wrote:Even nuk warehead need to explode near a ship to destroy it. All modern ships have NBC protection so they are safe if the explosion occure too far. I don't think intercontinantal missile could be reprogrammed to follow a moving ship. The flight is like 20-30 minutes, if a ship goes at 50km/h it will move 25 km for this time so it is safe.

Then best to use SLBM against naval bases to destroy ships undergoing refits etc

nastle77 wrote:......
Well the impression i got from posters on another US forum was that without using nukes soviet pacific fleet would be slaughtered by Japan navy like a repeat of 1904
Thats why i asked this question

Urghhhh, not this again.....

Just​ tell those geniuses that Russian Navy has this thing called submarines in addition to surface ships out in the Pacific

Also those coastal missiles and naval aircraft also come into equation

PapaDragon wrote:

nastle77 wrote:......
Well the impression i got from posters on another US forum was that without using nukes soviet pacific fleet would be slaughtered by Japan navy like a repeat of 1904
Thats why i asked this question

Urghhhh, not this again.....

Just​ tell those geniuses that Russian Navy has this thing called submarines in addition to surface ships out in the Pacific

Also those coastal missiles and naval aircraft also come into equation

The argument i heard was that the sea manship of jap navy is so much superior and that soviet navy could barely leave port and be overwhelmed

Even in surface warships pacific fleet has kiev kirov and slava and their missiles far outrange the harpoons they can decline or accept engagement depending on the circumstances, thsts my opinion

nastle77 wrote:

Isos wrote:Even nuk warehead need to explode near a ship to destroy it. All modern ships have NBC protection so they are safe if the explosion occure too far. I don't think intercontinantal missile could be reprogrammed to follow a moving ship. The flight is like 20-30 minutes, if a ship goes at 50km/h it will move 25 km for this time so it is safe.

Then best to use SLBM against naval bases to destroy ships undergoing refits etc

Even using nuk in pacific would be a suicide for the earth, let alone targeting costal cities. Stupid idea and totaly fiction not even imaginable.



Japan wouldn't go at war and risk to lose most important ships that are here to counter China, north corea, south corea... All these countries haven't forgotten what Japanese did in 45 ... And the only reason why a war could start between Ru and Japan is Kurils island. Even if Japan destroys all Rusian navy they could never exploit ressources out there because Ru air force would destroy all Japan fishing boat. It's better for Japan to talk by diplomatic means and try to reach an agreement.

Well if the future is doomed to be a repeat of history why pick 1905?

Why not pick a more recent time like 1939 when Soviet air and land power gave the Japs such a hiding they turned south and would rather face the navy of the US and the British commonwealth than go another round in a land war with the Russians?

Russia could simply use ground forces and move down the islands they hold now to the islands to the south that they don't...

Quick question, has there been any discussion on going for a more Nuclear navy structure?
After seeing the supposed new Gorshkov destroyer, i have wondered whether it is wise to limit such a ship with conventional propulsion.
Looking at the Soviet navy regarding this, it looks like they weren't really interested in a nuclear navy, since most Soviet ships used gas/steam turbines with the exception of the Kirov-class.
What do you guys think?

AlfaT8 wrote:Quick question, has there been any discussion on going for a more Nuclear navy structure?
After seeing the supposed new Gorshkov destroyer, i have wondered whether it is wise to limit such a ship with conventional propulsion.
Looking at the Soviet navy regarding this, it looks like they weren't really interested in a nuclear navy, since most Soviet ships used gas/steam turbines with the exception of the Kirov-class.
What do you guys think?

Nuclear is expensive to maintain, and much more to upgrade. You need specialist to control it. It's used on very big ship but for frigates or destroyers, it's not worth the money.

With a large fleet like the Soviets had, the cost was the main factor.

New modern compact NPPs on the other hand that are designed to operate for 20-30 years without needing refuelling should make it much more sensible and cheaper operationally to use in larger vessels.

AFAIK the destroyer sized vessels have been shown in conventional and NPP powered models.

AFAIK cruiser and carrier sized vessels were always intended to be nuclear powered.

The Kirov was a testbed, the Slava class was the conventional backup.

The Kirov lacked a powerful enough NPP so it used a combined conventional nuke propulsion system.

The new NPP system is powerful enough to operate on its own for the new ships.

The Soviets designed purpose built vessels... so despite both being similar size the Udaloy and Sovremmeny class destroyers had totally different systems from the ground up including weapons, propulsion, and sensors.

For the Russian Navy their new destroyers will have universal launchers so they can carry anti sub weapons (like the Udaloy SS-N-14, but better) and anti ship weapons (like the Sovremmeny SS-N-22 sunburn, but better) and also land attack missiles (Kalibr... which previous Soviet Destroyers had no equivalent of).

they will also have unified sensor suite to use the different weapon types and unified propulsion systems too...

BTW LSOS is correct... there comes a size where NPP makes no sense except with subs... small nuke subs are quite handy.

GarryB wrote:small nuke subs are quite handy.

How small? Kilo? Or Sierra?

Losharik actually,

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

...but Alpha is also a small nuke, but Kilo is an SSK. (Sierra is not that small).

I don't know where to ask this question, so I will just ask it here.

Is the twin barrel naval coalition gun canceled? Was it ever really a thing?
I haven't seen it on any of the models like super Gorshkov or Leader clas ships witch would be big enought for sutch a gun.

tomazy wrote:I don't know where to ask this question, so I will just ask it here.

Is the twin barrel naval coalition gun canceled? Was it ever really a thing?
I haven't seen it on any of the models like super Gorshkov or Leader clas ships witch would be big enought for sutch a gun.

Well, it is planned to be equipped on Lider cruisers, or even on Admiral Nakhimov.

(Take the word "planned" with a grain of salt, as there is not much info about this)

AFAIK it was developed together with the army so it was a joint Army Navy programme.

The use of the system by both arms of the military makes a lot of sense to reduce costs and improve commonality.

The main reason the land based Coalition lost its second gun was height and weight restrictions with transport aircraft.

Removing one gun also removed the dual loading system for the second gun and the stabilisation and aiming equipment it would use.

For a naval vessel the second gun would increase the rate of fire and not be much of a problem otherwise.

It was designed for large cruisers, so it remains to be seen if it gets fitted to upgraded Kirov class vessels or the new cruisers they are planning to build.

For a while the Soviets put their Sverdlov class ships into service for the naval gunfire support potential of its 152mm gun batteries, so it could be potentially fitted to a few different types for the purpose of supporting a landing.

A dedicated gun support vessel would be rather interesting too.

In terms of usefulness with two turrets with four guns firing 12 shells per minute per turret with 70km range projectiles with guided round accuracy of a few metres I would say it would be rather useful to support a landing, though rather cheaper to use Su-33s and dumb bombs for inland targets.

GarryB wrote:~Snip~
In terms of usefulness with two turrets with four guns firing 12 shells per minute per turret with 70km range projectiles with guided round accuracy of a few metres I would say it would be rather useful to support a landing, though rather cheaper to use Su-33s and dumb bombs for inland targets.

Naturally though not only does one get a certain flexibility but also unlike Aircraft such a platform likely offers benefits that are perhaps a little more 'All Weather' and indeed I guess sustained