Questions Thread: Russian Navy

marat wrote:Russia will have no big LS at least in next 6 years and i would be great to see Rogov on sea again. but i nevere heard that they planed to do so...

vpk-news.ru/news/25408 wrote:

"Cases of these ships are in good condition, but to restore their technical readiness, if necessary, will require a considerable amount of repairs, including the replacement of the main power plants" - a spokesman said.

At the same time, he stressed that "as long as no decision to this effect has been taken."

gazeta.ru/politics/2014/12/22_a_6355693.shtml wrote:

A source in the military-industrial circles told "Gazeta.ru", that one of the options to replace "Mistral" is the restoration of the Soviet large landing ships (BDK) Project 1174 "Rhinoceros." Who is the preservation of the two ships of the project - "Alexander Nikolaev" and "Mitrofan Moskalenko." To restore them, it will take several years and billions of rubles.

"There is, firstly, the need to examine the body, how it is worn, it should be changed. Surely already rotted lightweight aluminum bulkheads, may require replacement siding. And secondly, it is necessary to completely change all the equipment on modern, "- told" Gazeta.ru "a senior official of the Nevsky Design Bureau (PCB), to develop" Rhinoceros. "

According to him, the budget restoration work has not miscalculate.

"Everything will depend on money. The more it is allocated, the more people will be able to do it. First you need to develop terms of reference, we can do it with the leadership of the Navy, and then will need to select a plant that will upgrade. And it must be a large factory. If there's going to work 1.5 thousand. People, of whom 500 were allocated for repair, and 300 - on the ship, such repair will be delayed at least ten years ", - said the representative of the Nevsky PKB.


He cited the example of the project of modernization of the aircraft carrier "Admiral Gorshkov" aircraft carrier converted into an Indian "Vikramaditya". "This project took eight years, even to the" Sevmash ", and possibly" Sevmash "today does not have any other shipyard. Of course, "Gorshkov" four to six times more "Rhino" and "Sevmash" is now loaded for the full program, and will not do it "- said the" Gazety.Ru ".

At the Baltic Shipyard "Yantar", where both ships were built, "Gazeta.ru" confirmed that they are ready to take an order for modernization "Moskalenko" and "Nikolaev", but not before 2018. At the same time representative of the plant suggested that would be wiser to engage in the modernization of one of the Far Eastern shipyards with specialists from other companies.

Military expert, founder of the portal Military Russia Dmitry Kornev said "Gazeta.ru" that without significant alterations "Rhinos" will not be able to replace the "Mistral" and major changes may catch up with the cost of the creation of a new ship.

GunshipDemocracy wrote:About subs but not their armament: Does anybody any info about gym equipment on Russian subs? specially on nuclear subs...steel weights might cause lots of noise...no weights ? no good for couple of months outside port...body weight fixed gym? i.e. n o moving parts kind of turnik (ghetto workout in US)?

PapaDragon wrote:

GunshipDemocracy wrote:About subs but not their armament: Does anybody any info about gym equipment on Russian subs? specially on nuclear subs...steel weights might cause lots of noise...no weights ? no good for couple of months outside port...body weight fixed gym? i.e. n o moving parts kind of turnik (ghetto workout in US)?

I am pretty sure they solved that one long ago...

GunshipDemocracy wrote:

PapaDragon wrote:

GunshipDemocracy wrote:About subs but not their armament: Does anybody any info about gym equipment on Russian subs? specially on nuclear subs...steel weights might cause lots of noise...no weights ? no good for couple of months outside port...body weight fixed gym? i.e. n o moving parts kind of turnik (ghetto workout in US)?

I am pretty sure they solved that one long ago...

Actually my question about how and not if

PapaDragon wrote:

GunshipDemocracy wrote:

PapaDragon wrote:

GunshipDemocracy wrote:About subs but not their armament: Does anybody any info about gym equipment on Russian subs? specially on nuclear subs...steel weights might cause lots of noise...no weights ? no good for couple of months outside port...body weight fixed gym? i.e. n o moving parts kind of turnik (ghetto workout in US)?

I am pretty sure they solved that one long ago...

Actually my question about how and not if

Well if I had to guess I would say with ample use of rubber....

But seriously, I don't know, we'll have to wait for Artyom or someone else for that one.

Was there any plan to use the ICBM in the ASUW or ASW role during the cold war era ?

..fully loaded these aircraft are very very heavy and even with a catapult would be marginal in terms of flight speed...

The MiG-25R is a tactical reconnaissance aircraft. The MiG-25RB is a variant for bombing area and large targets. The aircraft is fitted with a reconnaissance station, aerial camera, topographic aerial camera, the Peteng sighting and navigation system to bomb programmed targets, and electronic countermeasures (ECM) equipment, which includes active jamming and electronic reconnaissance systems.
The MiG-25BM aircraft has the capability to launch guided missiles against ground targets, and to destroy area targets, targets with known co-ordinates, and enemy radars. The airborne anti-radar Kh-58 (Nato codename AS-11 Kilter) missiles are capable of destroying enemy radars, such as the targeting radars of Hawk-type air defence missile systems, at stand-off ranges. The launch range of the Kh-58 is from 40-300km.

GarryB wrote:Even just the cost in rockets would make it a bad idea... but the danger of rockets on the flight deck, and the fact that fully loaded these aircraft are very very heavy and even with a catapult would be marginal in terms of flight speed... meaning any problems on takeoff or landing and you lose a very big very heavy very expensive aircraft.

The F-111 was originally going to be a carrier aircraft but was also deemed to be too heavy and it had the advantage of a big straight wing on takeoff (swing wing of course).

The radar and big missiles developed for the F-111 for use on carriers as a big interceptor were later adapted to the F-14...

It would make more sense to adapt the PAK FA to the carrier role than to make the MiGs heavier by strengthening them for carrier operations...

The MiG-23 probably only lacked payload options as it pretty much was limited to two wing mounted BVR missiles in the form of R-24s and two underbody mounted twin launchers for R-60s... so two R-24s and four R-60s, with good flight range and speed.

The fact is that the MiG-29 can do that better already.

Was there any plan to use the ICBM in the ASUW or ASW role during the cold war era ?

Not as far as I know. The problem would be targeting the ICBM to the target location as there was no direct communication between the Navy and Strategic Missile forces.

The navy already had plenty of tactical nuclear weapons so the extra range of an ICBM would be overkill.

If they did they would more likely use SLBMs rather than ICBMs, but I suspect enemy land targets would be a higher priority.

I meant the occasional recon/strike mission by non-navalized, not fully fueled & armed MiG-25/31. They could get their fuel tanks topped off in the air and recover on land!

SLBM could they be targeted towards warships ?

And what about the AS 15 cruise missiles carried by Bear H. Were they ever considered as anti ship weapons ?

Is Russian navy operating midget subs like yugo class or smaller ? Do they have projects of that type ?

PapaDragon wrote:
Guys I have a question about Project 22460 Coast Guard ships:

They have option for installation of 4 x Kh-35 missiles even though they are not currently installed.

Where exactly on the ship would they go if they were to be installed?

AlfaT8 wrote:What is the status on Project 11541 korsar
I haven't heard anything about it, is it vapor-ware??

https://www.russiadefence.net/t2591p60-2013-naval-show-st-petersburg

George1 wrote:

AlfaT8 wrote:What is the status on Project 11541 korsar
I haven't heard anything about it, is it vapor-ware??

https://www.russiadefence.net/t2591p60-2013-naval-show-st-petersburg

Ιt is the export version of Neustrashimy Class (Project 11540 Yastreb)

AlfaT8 wrote:

George1 wrote:

AlfaT8 wrote:What is the status on Project 11541 korsar
I haven't heard anything about it, is it vapor-ware??

https://www.russiadefence.net/t2591p60-2013-naval-show-st-petersburg

Ιt is the export version of Neustrashimy Class (Project 11540 Yastreb)

Hell of an export variant if these models are accurate.

George1 wrote:Here are the specifications in the Rosoboronexport catalog

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

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?