Questions Thread: Russian Navy

In addition to the former post from GarryB, once a sub has launched one or more torpedoes against a target, an ASW missile is the best way to engage the sub promptly, while decoys and ASW mortars like the RBU-6000 and rbu-12000 try to take out the torpedoes.

In order to maximize the chance to break through the target's decoys noise, the sub should try to give the torpedoes updates from its own sensors through the tethering wire, and even a hard port or a fast dive to evade an incoming ASW torpedo could snap the wire forcing the torpedo to rely on its own sensors only, in turn easing countermeasures' job..

Obviously, a tethered ASW torpedo will always have an higher KP because guided/assisted by the better sensors of the launching platform, but nothing would engage faster than a missile-borne ASW torpedo.

The only better case would be of an incompetent Sub's Commander choosing to launch torpedoes when an ASW Heli happens to be just above his head.

By the way, there is no SSN able to launch dozen of harpoon at a time.

Those subs would be VLS equipped SSGNs, whose mission is not to engage a surface target unless for self-defense or if such target is of strategic value with no SSNs at hand.

Everyone

I'm looking for any information I can find about how Russian ships are organized and operate. I've been looking into how the Russian Navy handle damage control and weapons firing/tracking aboard ship. I'm interested on how they do it and who does it. All I have been able to find so far has only talked about Russian strategic tactics and that is not what I am looking for.

I would much appreciate any sources anyone can give me.

Thanks.

T

It is a forum rule that your first post should be an introduction in the intro and rules section.

Too late for you now, but please take the time to create a new thread in the introductions and rules section to introduce yourself... you might also want to take the time to skim through the rules and perhaps the intros of some of the members so you know who you are talking to.

Garry - thanks - sorry. I had every intention of posting on the forum but had to step away from my computer and never got back to it.

I have already read the rules and posted in the introduction area.

T

Here is an example of what I am looking for.

Damage control organization.

The US Navy ships are organized with damage control responsibilities set up with Damage Controlmen overall responsible for damage control and others assisting the damage controlmen as secondary responsibilities.

Damage control is broken down into damage control parties designated 1,3,5,etc. who has specific responsibilities. These damage control parties are supervised by damage control men (with officers involved) but manned by other crew. These parties are responsible for primary damage control with other people being pulled from the ranks as people are hurt/killed, become tired, damage becomes too much for the primary damage control teams to handle,etc.

The entire ship's damage control systems is run by an officer whose only job is damage control - the DCA (damage control assistant). He is the assistant to the Chief Engineer and his entire job is to be in complete control of everything aboard ship related to damage control. The ship has a space specifically for the control of damage control (Damage Control Central) and the DCA is there during all GQ's.

In the case of extreme emergency, anyone not directly involved with either fighting the ship or moving the ship would be involved with damage control.

The US Navy obviously trains damage controlmen the most in damage control with the damage control parties getting a bit less, and then general crew a bit less than that. But all hands are trained in at least minimal damage control activities as collateral duties along-side of their regular duties.

The also have DC Maintenance men whose other collateral job includes keeping the ship's damage control equipment in good shape. These people may or may not be on damage control parties - they simply keep the equipment in their respective departments in good shape.

So I am wondering if the Russian Navy or the Soviet Navy organized their damage control that way as well? How is it different. I just read the conscripted sailors are being removed from Russian Navy ships so how has that changed the way the ships are run?

Thanks to anyone who can assist me.

T

I have not seen a Russian poster say he served on ships. There is one poster who served in the navy but he did so land based. If you look in the video section there have been several in the past year showing training exercises in damage control.

The RT documentary series The Baltic Fleet may be of some use? ep1 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XhCGtc4kWDQ
Has a bunch of footage of them doing stuff onboard.
I seem to recall some commentary that its a very staged thing & a bunch of it seems really odd so take with a handful of salt.

Several of the Military Acceptance episodes include footage of damage control exercises too but I'm not gonna go hunting through them.

Gents, what's the possibility that The Lider will have Peresvet laser point defense system.

It would be rather sensible for larger Russian vessels to get laser missile defence systems.

In fact the west claimed that the Frunze in the Kirov class actually had laser weapons in the mid 1980s when she entered service, but those claims were never substantiated AFAIK.

Such a laser weapon would be a quick way of dealing with IIR guided anti ship missiles like NSM.

This probably has a thread but I can't find it.
Why hasn't Russia traded back its Mistral helicopter carriers from Egypt ? Why not. Would there be diplomatic consequences?

Just make an under the table deal to get them back. Can Egypt even afford to do anything with them ?

Backman wrote:This probably has a thread but I can't find it.
Why hasn't Russia traded back its Mistral helicopter carriers from Egypt ? Why not. Would there be diplomatic consequences?

Just make an under the table deal to get them back. Can Egypt even afford to do anything with them ?

Egypt can't sell them without french agreement. They would be sued and would pay billion.

Rusdia would use them untill they need to be check in shipyard and only french can do it.

And besides they were crappy ships, so the VMF was rather relieved by losing them

LMFS wrote:And besides they were crappy ships, so the VMF was rather relieved by losing them

Not so crappy. They ordered them.

Sure if you compare them to kirovs they are crappy but if you compare them to other russian landing ships they are better than anything else.

Isos wrote:

LMFS wrote:And besides they were crappy ships, so the VMF was rather relieved by losing them

Not so crappy. They ordered them.

Sure if you compare them to kirovs they are crappy but if you compare them to other russian landing ships they are better than anything else.

Well they were under-armed, and needed to be treated for Artic/Sub-Arctic conditions. Ideally IMO the new landing ships should have an element of ice-breaking ability built in to the stern.

Who was minister then? That says it all. The industry and the military were not specially amused about the deal, as with so many of his incompetent decisions.

The vessels were not warships in the sense Russia understands it. They got their money back and now they will build something hopefully better, everybody happy

Deal sucked for Russia but the ships are very good for their role and their role isn't to be armed like destroyers.

Defensive weapon on turret like kashtan can be easily added but the ship isn't supposed to go in a contested zone alone and will wait that enemy anti ship forces are destroyed before being used for landing. It would also be protected by at least 2 other ships all the time during a war.

They would have used them if they had been allowed to get them, and despite not being ideal for their purposes I think they would have been decent ships.

No ships are perfect and all have some vices... by now the Russians would have had both Mistral ships in service and would likely be looking to order the next two... I would expect the first two would have gone to the Pacific Fleet and the second two to the Northern Fleet operating at each end of the new North Sea Route as well as the Pacific and Atlantic oceans.

But France decided that Russia is evil and dangerous and having two Mistral class carriers would be the end of the world so they said no.... you can't have what you paid for and partially built already.

The idea for Russia was speed... it was an already established design that was operational and fully tested so they should expect no surprises and it can go into serial production straight away... they wanted at least four, but if could have been expanded to 6 if they found them useful... which is likely.

Well the speed was correct they had two built rather quickly, but a political decision means it is not to be.

Russia got some ship building experience and got to look at an example of a Helicopter carrier inside and out, and Russian companies made quite a bit of the internal bits on those two carriers as well as building helicopters and other things for it too.

Now they have laid down their own ships... it will of course take much much longer, but they can think about the design of the Mistral and make their own changes and add ons to get a ship that suits them better.

Russia essentially wanted a ship to operate in the arctic, which I am pretty sure was never part of the design specification for the Mistral, so in that regard they can change the design to be more suitable to their needs.

The extra time should also allow the development of new systems and equipment too... perhaps a decent large radar set they will be planning for their newbuild cruisers could be used to improve situational awareness, and I would think at a very minimum they would fit Pantsir batteries in each corner and waist positions and TOR systems as well just as basic close in defence.

Buying the Mistrals from Egypt was never part of any plan AFAIK... they just chalked it up to a lesson in commerce and worked on creating a Russian solution to a Russian problem.

Tarentul missile ship is getting a new fire control system of the RFS 962 Shuya, Sevastopol, December 2020.
Does that mean new missiles will be installed ? or just for trial ?

https://twitter.com/Capt_Navy/status/1338131564211867656/photo/1

I'm new to the forum. I have a few questions. I'm sorry for my bad english...

1- How is the Russian navy now? (as technology)
2- How against america ?
3- How is sea power ?

Thank you from now

COMMANDER wrote:I'm new to the forum. I have a few questions. I'm sorry for my bad english...

1- How is the Russian navy now? (as technology)
2- How against america ?
3- How is sea power ?

Thank you from now

Surface navy:

1) Technology is better than ever, missiles are best ones in existence

2) Close to home waters great thanks to coastal assets, away from home waters they are completely outnumbered (for non nuclear war)

3) They still don't have sufficient number of ships to have proper "power" away from home, it will be about a decade or two before they get to that point (shorter if they commit to building more Gorshkov frigates)

COMMANDER wrote:I'm new to the forum. I have a few questions. I'm sorry for my bad english...

1- How is the Russian navy now? (as technology)
2- How against america ?
3- How is sea power ?

Thank you from now

Introduce yourself pls here:
https://www.russiadefence.net/f6-member-introductions-and-rules

Admiral Levchenko Udaloy-class:

Tarentul missile ship is getting a new fire control system of the RFS 962 Shuya, Sevastopol, December 2020.
Does that mean new missiles will be installed ? or just for trial ?

AFAIK the four Moskit or SS-N-22 Sunburn missiles are going to be replaced with 16 Uran missiles, and a Pantsir-M system is going to be fitted too to replace any AK-630 system.

The new fire control system and phased array radars will replace the search radars of the Pantsir-M in the detection and search role.

2- How against america ?

The Soviet and Russian navy even at their height were never about facing the west let alone just the US on its own and it was only ever intended for survival and trying to keep US carriers away from Russian or Soviet shores.

With Kinzhal and MiG-31s as well as corvettes and frigates and land based anti ship missiles and weapons they have pretty much achieved the ability to be safe from US conventional naval threats.

Their frigate programme is not going to effect their global reach really... they have sailed corvettes and frigates around the world in testing, but both ship types lack the endurance for global use and will replace cold war corvettes and destroyers in terms of coastal and near coastal Russian use. Note they are designating their upgraded cold war destroyers as frigates too even though their size means more endurance and more space is available.

They will start looking to expand to global reach when they start making new destroyers and new cruisers even though upgraded cruisers and their existing carriers will allow international visits to allies and friends.

That means they wont be a global force for probably 8-10 years at least though with the laying down of two helicopter carriers they will be laying destroyers down pretty soon in my opinion because they will need them to support their operations... but they wont be fully operational for 8-10 years as I say.

They don't have the interest or the funding to dominate and police the worlds oceans like the US, and they wont be making anywhere near the 10 carriers and carrier groups that would be needed to have a global permanent presence.

They will likely keep the Kuznetsov and perhaps make two CVNs in the 70-80K ton weight range, for visiting other continents with a surface group of ships that can effectively protect themselves and survive practically any attack.

The CVNs will likely have S-500 and be pretty formidable, while the Cruisers they build will likely be amazing in terms of weapons and sensors, but they will primarily be used to build up international trade with countries that traditionally don't currently trade with Russia.

Without carrier groups and ships that can sail to the ends of the earth the west will simply be able to blockade them like they did with Japan just before WWII started.

The ships are for access to world trade, not to invade and bully third world countries...

The ship are in continuous use and should be replaced soon. Especially the own protection should be upgraded.

Well Ivan Gren is supposed to be it

If next two are good then odds are good that there will be double digit series ordered afterwards