Project 21631: Buyan-M missile ship

PapaDragon wrote:
Yeah, the legendary diesel disaster

I'm still unsure why the government just didn't outright force the company to hand over the blueprints of the engines so others can build them. Must be a shot ton of legal issues authorities refuse wanting to deal with. But these ships are important enough to warrant a siezure imo.

The experiences in Syria show that only TORM 2 actually acts almost certain and every threat killt. This also has the better radar what I really decisive is for ships. Better take a little more money in hand but have proper air defense and ship protection.

TOR are only on very big ships... ie Udaloy destroyers and Slava and Kirov class destroyers and the Kuznetsov CV... the radar directors are large and single purpose and therefore not really suitable for smaller vessels.

I have not read any information about any Pantsirs failing to shoot down threats... the only ones destroyed had no missiles on them... which suggests they were overwhelmed... which is something that can happen to any system. Equally the forces that were using them at the time used them singly or in pairs which makes them very vulnerable to swarm attack because there are no systems providing cover while missiles are reloaded.

The missiles on the naval version are automatically reloaded rather quickly and the two 6 barrel gatling gun mounts are also rather more formidable than the twin barrel 2A38M cannon used on the land based system.

The radar coverage and situational awareness of even a small ship will be much better than for any ground based individual SAM vehicle.

Is your horizon so small? It's all about threats like Delia, Spike, Harpon, C-802, etc. and not just about "Turkish drones". This also includes RQ-170 and other. Better radar, better rockets, better protection for the ship.

Pantsir could engage any of those systems and in a flat open ocean would see threats at much greater range too.

Both have engine production problems

But those production problems have not led to them cancelling anything, so logically those engine problems are being sorted out and solved... which sounds like an enormous waste of effort if you are just going to make a few more and then stop...

It is an obsolete engine design to begin with. Complex with many parts.
They would be better off designing a new engine.

They are currently spending good money designing new jet engines that are state of the art and scalable to different sizes and power levels... perhaps they could also invest in developing new diesel engine technology that could be scalable and use the latest designs and materials and technologies... from light aircraft, though land vehicles and ships and up to power stations and heavy civilian ships.... it would be worth it even if they made them for Chinese ship production needs or perhaps for South Korea to put in the ships they make...

GarryB wrote:

The experiences in Syria show that only TORM 2 actually acts almost certain and every threat killt. This also has the better radar what I really decisive is for ships.  Better take a little more money in hand but have proper air defense and ship protection.

TOR are only on very big ships... ie Udaloy destroyers and Slava and Kirov class destroyers and the Kuznetsov CV... the radar directors are large and single purpose and therefore not really suitable for smaller vessels.

I have not read any information about any Pantsirs failing to shoot down threats... the only ones destroyed had no missiles on them... which suggests they were overwhelmed... which is something that can happen to any system. Equally the forces that were using them at the time used them singly or in pairs which makes them very vulnerable to swarm attack because there are no systems providing cover while missiles are reloaded.

The missiles on the naval version are automatically reloaded rather quickly and the two 6 barrel gatling gun mounts are also rather more formidable than the twin barrel 2A38M cannon used on the land based system.

The radar coverage and situational awareness of even a small ship will be much better than for any ground based individual SAM vehicle.

Is your horizon so small? It's all about threats like Delia, Spike, Harpon, C-802, etc. and not just about "Turkish drones". This also includes RQ-170 and other. Better radar, better rockets, better protection for the ship.

Pantsir could engage any of those systems and in a flat open ocean would see threats at much greater range too.

Both have engine production problems

But those production problems have not led to them cancelling anything, so logically those engine problems are being sorted out and solved... which sounds like an enormous waste of effort if you are just going to make a few more and then stop...

There are some reports from the Base of Latakia, in which PantsirM was not completely convinced. It looked different with Torm2.

Also, the BukM2E is preferred against sliding bombs or severe spacer weapons in Syria. Against serious anti-ship weapons, I therefore see TorM2 even better.

The system is not that big. An extension of the ship by about 5m takes the gate system behind the VLS. This also gives more space for larger drives for more energy and speed.

The PantsirM is sure to upgrade. Such a ship in the third generation with TorM2 would be significantly better in my view with 2x8 missiles and the better radar plus AK630.

Don´t repeat this BS. If Pantsir was unreliable it wouldn´t been procured in large numbers.

And the missile range of Tor is only 15 km compared to 30km of the new missile for Pantsir.

Mig-31BM2 Super Irbis-E wrote:

GarryB wrote:

The experiences in Syria show that only TORM 2 actually acts almost certain and every threat killt. This also has the better radar what I really decisive is for ships.  Better take a little more money in hand but have proper air defense and ship protection.

TOR are only on very big ships... ie Udaloy destroyers and Slava and Kirov class destroyers and the Kuznetsov CV... the radar directors are large and single purpose and therefore not really suitable for smaller vessels.

I have not read any information about any Pantsirs failing to shoot down threats... the only ones destroyed had no missiles on them... which suggests they were overwhelmed... which is something that can happen to any system. Equally the forces that were using them at the time used them singly or in pairs which makes them very vulnerable to swarm attack because there are no systems providing cover while missiles are reloaded.

The missiles on the naval version are automatically reloaded rather quickly and the two 6 barrel gatling gun mounts are also rather more formidable than the twin barrel 2A38M cannon used on the land based system.

The radar coverage and situational awareness of even a small ship will be much better than for any ground based individual SAM vehicle.

Is your horizon so small? It's all about threats like Delia, Spike, Harpon, C-802, etc. and not just about "Turkish drones". This also includes RQ-170 and other. Better radar, better rockets, better protection for the ship.

Pantsir could engage any of those systems and in a flat open ocean would see threats at much greater range too.

Both have engine production problems

But those production problems have not led to them cancelling anything, so logically those engine problems are being sorted out and solved... which sounds like an enormous waste of effort if you are just going to make a few more and then stop...

There are some reports from the Base of Latakia, in which PantsirM was not completely convinced. It looked different with Torm2.

Also, the BukM2E is preferred against sliding bombs or severe spacer weapons in Syria. Against serious anti-ship weapons, I therefore see TorM2 even better.

The system is not that big. An extension of the ship by about 5m takes the gate system behind the VLS. This also gives more space for larger drives for more energy and speed.

The PantsirM is sure to upgrade. Such a ship in the third generation with TorM2 would be significantly better in my view with 2x8 missiles and the better radar plus AK630.

On land, the Tor and Buk outperform the Pansir-S1 (they have different roles, tho) significantly and that's just a fact. The SM version, however, is much better than the S1, so we'll have to see. On sea, Tor and Pantsir have quite different tasks. There's no reason a ship cant have both. It's just that the Kinzhal VLS isn't really compact, and Tor-M2KM is doing tests. But I would take the Pantsir with its extra radar over the AK630 any day.

Pantsir comes with guns with the same FCS as the missiles.

Tor don't and you would need to integrate couple of ak-630 or 57mm gun on the ship.

Russians love their CIWS guns.

Pantsir is compact and can go on small ships like buyan. Tor+ ak630 wouldn't fit.

In terms of size Tor vls are huge because they are old. A new system could just take the land VLS that fits 16 missiles in a small truck and put it anywhere on the ship.

The point I was trying to make with the TOR is that only very large ships have it... the smallest Russian/Soviet ship with TOR is the Udaloy class destroyers, and the other ships that have it also have Kashtan which is essentially Pantsir, so it is actually used together on ships most of the time.

It has been mentioned there are two new versions of Pantsir in ship versions and they appear to be one system to refit older ships, and another system for new model stealthy ships which one presumes is more stealthy.

The Pantsir system on new Corvettes does not need the CM and MMW radar on the gun mount because the ships main AESA radars can perform the search and tracking functions just fine, which means the turret mount just needs guns and missiles and optics making them smaller and lighter and cheaper.

New model TOR are formidable missiles and the new radars are excellent, but Pantsir can engage targets further away even in the original model and in the current models could engage targets 40km distant which would include most western and new Russian helicopters with 25-32km range stand off missiles they are coming out with... TOR on the other hand would just need to swat down the incoming missiles.

I rather suspect the CIWS surface to air missiles used on Corvettes will be a mix of Igla-S and Verba and the new MANPAD, together with those fitted with Redut systems using 9M100 missiles four to a launch tube...

Those deck mounted vertical launch trailers for TOR look more like they are for cargo ships or container ships or even landing ships on the deck with a SA-15 vehicle to direct the missiles.

I like TOR and think that without a solid rocket booster and using simple cheap command guidance having the top layer of a deck where there is free space covered in vertical launch tubes for TOR just makes sense for every armed ship... I would like to see a version wiht four AESA phased array radars pointing in all four directions providing search and track functions with electronic scanning to allow enormous numbers of targets to be tracked and missiles to be guided.

Testing in Syria will lead to both systems being upgraded... there is no perfect system that never needs upgrades with experience... don't think of Pantsir as bad... because it is getting upgraded.

Think of Patriot as being bad because it failed in Saudi Arabia and instead of working out what happened and fixing the system so it can't happen again... they withdrew them from the region so they wont be defeated again and made to look bad.... pride in a faulty system is more important than the job it is supposed to be doing defending soldiers lives on a battlefield....

In comparison Pantsir is AMAZING... and it and TOR are just systems the US can only dream about.

Lennox wrote:
On land, the Tor and Buk outperform the Pansir-S1 (they have different roles, tho) significantly and that's just a fact. The SM version, however, is much better than the S1, so we'll have to see. On sea, Tor and Pantsir have quite different tasks. There's no reason a ship cant have both. It's just that the Kinzhal VLS isn't really compact, and Tor-M2KM is doing tests. But I would take the Pantsir with its extra radar over the AK630 any day.

Agree 100%.  The Adm Nahkimov will be just such a ship.  Tor-based Khinzhal together with navalised Pantsir as a next-gen Kashtan CIWS replacement.

There must be a good reason why the Orlan cruisers were equipped with both, and that the deep modernisation of Nahkimov isn't changing the arrangement.  I trust the Russian naval architects and weapons gurus more than amateur enthusiasts, no offense intended to the naysayers!

BTW I see Tor-M2KM as being an add-on package to light combatants and for coast guard, merchantmen & auxiliaries in times of trouble rather than a full-fledged system for war-fighting hulls. Reloading of spent ordinance by hand or shipside crane is not conducive to heated engagements with a determined enemy.

There must be a good reason why the Orlan cruisers were equipped with both, and that the deep modernisation of Nahkimov isn't changing the arrangement. I trust the Russian naval architects and weapons gurus more than amateur enthusiasts, no offense intended to the naysayers! Very Happy

Reason that comes to my mind are space, the gatling guns kashtan/pantsir have but tor doesn't but also more fire solution during a salvo attack so more missile fired at the same time.

Both tor and pantsir use one radar each so when engaging one target left another target on the righ can't be engaged. You need to destroy the first target and then turn your radar aquire the target, lock on and engage. Pantsir has 20-0km range so it has the time to do so against a low numver of missiles, but kashtan with its 8km range missiles would be overwhelmed by 3 missiles.

Small systems have limits.

That's why you want different level of air defence. For ships, agaibst anti ship missiles flying very low, you need medium range system (Shtil-1 or 9m96), then a short range system (tor) and a CIWS (pantsir).

I would even add a laser guided sosna-R or IR guided Igla mount in order to not depend 100% on electromagnetic guidance (radar/radio).

Long range like S-400 are useless against missiles flying very low against which detection range is around 50km. Could use it but it's better to have quad pack 9m96 instead of 48N6. What they are good at is keep the enemy air force far away to not let them come close to jamm your fire control radars or use smaller missiles in bigger number.

Isos wrote: Long range like S-400 are useless against missiles flying very low against which detection range is around 50km. Could use it but it's better to have quad pack 9m96 instead of 48N6. What they are good at is keep the enemy air force far away to not let them come close to jamm your fire control radars or use smaller missiles in bigger number.

The S-400s 96L6-1/96L6E Acquisition Radar is said to be operated in the 'C' band.

Does this C band refer to the IEEE frequency between S and X band or does it mean NATO 'C' band i.e UHF frequency?

Reason that comes to my mind are space, the gatling guns kashtan/pantsir have but tor doesn't but also more fire solution during a salvo attack so more missile fired at the same time.

The reloading system for the missiles are what makes the system consume the volume of several decks below where it is mounted, but as shown with land based SAMs there is no reason why even multi stage missiles like the S-300V cannot be vertically launched in space efficient launch bins.

The long narrow physical shape of the Pantsir and Kashtan missiles means they would fill more space than the shorter smaller TOR missiles, but that length provides extra range and performance too.

Both tor and pantsir use one radar each so when engaging one target left another target on the righ can't be engaged.

Not true, but systems can actually control up to 8 missiles at a time against four targets with the field of view of the tracking radars which are quite wide... with four to 8 vehicles in each battery it is perfectly plausible to have each of the vehicles positioned to provide 360 degree coverage with their tracking radars... and both systems can optically engage targets too.

You need to destroy the first target and then turn your radar aquire the target, lock on and engage.

No you don't.... a battery is coordinated so perhaps lets say 6 incoming targets, three from the south, one from the west and two from the north, so one vehicle could engage all three targets arriving from the south at once with up to six missiles, while another vehicle can engage the targets from the north and another the target from the west.

The tracking radar can lock onto up to four targets at a time.

Pantsir has 20-0km range so it has the time to do so against a low numver of missiles, but kashtan with its 8km range missiles would be overwhelmed by 3 missiles.

Not at all.... in both cases the effective radar range extends well beyond the missiles engagement range so the Kashtan could be tracking the targets out to the same distance the Pantsir does and missiles could be launched as the targets approaches the 8km range... both sets of missiles are very high speed so interception would occur in less than 15 seconds, so 16 targets approaching, the first four could be shot down at about 8km and 20 seconds later then next four missiles could be launched and while those missiles are in flight the next 8 missiles are loaded onto the launch mount ready for 20 seconds later when the next four missiles can be launched.

Kashtan could shoot down rather large numbers of targets with missiles and guns when the targets are much closer.

Pantsir is the same.

Kashtan and Pantsir missiles move at about 1km per second and the newer missile versions are even faster.... the missile flight time to 8km is less than 8 seconds.

The missiles are command guided and can therefore can be re-directed to new targets when their initial target is shot down. The engagement time for each missile is rather short even for Pantsir at 20km range by the time the missile gets to the target it is still travelling at over half a kilometre a second... and missile reloads can be performed with missiles in flight.

That's why you want different level of air defence. For ships, agaibst anti ship missiles flying very low, you need medium range system (Shtil-1 or 9m96), then a short range system (tor) and a CIWS (pantsir).

With a good radar picture... either from a bigger ship or a Ka-31 AEW aircraft enemy anti ship missiles can be shot down at max missile range with Redut down to sea level... that is 60km for the small 9M96 missile and 150km for the bigger of the two. General information to get the missile to the target area and then the missile turns on its own radar and finishes the job.

I would even add a laser guided sosna-R or IR guided Igla mount in order to not depend 100% on electromagnetic guidance (radar/radio).

Would agree but would suggest the reverse is the most likely situation... the radio command guided TOR and Pantsir missiles offer day night and all weather capability for situations like sea fog and heavy rain where laser beam riding and IIR guided missiles have degraded performance.

Plus of course the command guided missiles are super cheap and very very accurate.

Long range like S-400 are useless against missiles flying very low against which detection range is around 50km. Could use it but it's better to have quad pack 9m96 instead of 48N6. What they are good at is keep the enemy air force far away to not let them come close to jamm your fire control radars or use smaller missiles in bigger number.

They both have their own radars being ARH missiles so as long as you can detect the targets at beyond the radar horizon then you can use them to engage them too.

Whether it is a Ka-31 AEW aircraft, or another ship, or a MiG-29K using its radar to detect incoming threats and passing the target data to the ship group.

Not true, but systems can actually control up to 8 missiles at a time against four targets with the field of view of the tracking radars which are quite wide... with four to 8 vehicles in each battery it is perfectly plausible to have each of the vehicles positioned to provide 360 degree coverage with their tracking radars... and both systems can optically engage targets too.

We are talking about naval systems. Even the big Udaloy which use Tor as the main air defence system has only 2 radars for them.

On small ships like it is the case here they get only one system.

And my statement is true. They can engage more than one target at once only if they come from different directions. Having one missile coming from east one from west means you can't engage both at the same time.

And don't expect them to intercept small missiles with RCS reduction coatings at max range. Pantsir in Syria intercepted mostly at less than 10km small targets.

Two radars to cover the angles... the Kuznetsov has four radars in each corner of the Island to provide all round coverage, which means it can engage 16 targets at one time.

Each radar can actually track 12 objects at one time, but four are targets and up to 8 can be outgoing missiles... the radar track the incoming targets and track up to 8 outgoing missiles and send flight commands to each missile to manouver it to a collision course with the target.

On small ships like it is the case here they get only one system.

Of course, which means there will be blind spots... but the ships radar sees sea skimming targets out to the radar horizon and being a ship it can turn to allow its radars to engage targets in blind spots. It will generally also have a large calibre bow mounted gun able to fire air burst ammo too.

They can engage more than one target at once only if they come from different directions. Having one missile coming from east one from west means you can't engage both at the same time.

The main search radar on the ships can track all the incoming threats and the closest or most dangerous threats can be engaged first... for instance 4 missiles coming from the south and three from the north... the ship can turn east/west and the three from the north can all be engaged at once while perhaps the main gun engages the closest of the four threats coming from the south that might be slower or further away.

TOR missiles are mach 3 plus missiles and their range of 15km make them rather capable and useful as well as being compact and cheap.

Improved radar technology and signal processing as well as more accurate flight controls means that these days one missile will be fired for each target instead of the traditional two because the hit probability is so much higher.

The new Redut system with 9M100 missiles will be more expensive but also more capable.

And don't expect them to intercept small missiles with RCS reduction coatings at max range.

Well the thing is that most small ships are getting enormous AESA radar arrays which could perform the role of both search and tracking rather effectively, and the large size of the arrays means even very small targets could be tracked and have missiles directed to... and the EO guided option where the target is tracked with optics and the tracking radar is used to direct flight commands to the missile could engage even targets with zero RCS...

Obviously no system is perfect and it is just maths to work out the capacity of the system and then launch a few extra missiles to overwhelm... but where are all these missiles coming from? And what is protecting all those launch platforms from attack?

And who is to say Russia would send corvettes off to combat alone and unsupported?

When you add a second corvette or a frigate then the air defence capacity becomes vastly more formidable... main guns and missiles can be used together to not just take down incoming threats but also launch platforms before they launch.

If they achieve their plans of extending the range of the 152mm Coalition artillery system and mount a naval model on their destroyers and new cruisers... perhaps even their upgraded cruisers as well as coastal artillery... imagine the situation... a British destroyer with 48 SAMs of type Aster.... with ranges of 30km and 120km... a coastal Bereg battery fitted with a 152mm main gun could easily fire 50 shells at the ship in a minute or two... each shell would be 40kgs of HE and metal fragments and could not be ignored... Sokol-1 tank gun fired missiles of 125mm calibre have an EO sensor which could be fitted to these rounds... a ship in the middle of the ocean surrounded by sea would be an obvious and easy target... the Bereg could be firing from a mere 20km distant because to violate Russian waters they would have to enter them... meaning getting close to Crimea.

The Bereg could use different firing angles so most of the rounds come in at one time... I doubt there is a ship that could survive that short of firing an airburst tactical nuke in the path of the rounds... which is likely going to blind your own sensors to the next volley of rounds.

A Bereg battery is about six vehicles and each would be firing a minimum of 20 rounds per minute... the west talks about swarm attacks... is this what they meant?

Some excellent pix of the Buyan M, including interior and close up of weapons (not sure if aleady posted)

Uglich Buyan M

Grayvoron, Ingushetia and Orekhovo-Zuevo at Sevastopol (early December)

... and imagine that those little fellas can just disappear in a waste inland river net of Russia, still being capable to strike targets in half of Europe/ME.
Hell, they cover the whole UK sitting in the middle of a lake next to Peter

ALAMO wrote:... and imagine that those little fellas can just disappear in a waste inland river net of Russia, still being capable to strike targets in half of Europe/ME.
Hell, they cover the whole UK sitting in the middle of a lake next to Peter

Well now that the treaty on banning land based long range cruise and ballistic missiles is gone thanks to the US, they don't need those ships anymore.

They can just use a cheap truck instead.

That's mostly why they bought such ship. Launch kalibr at 2500km away targets from port because they couldn't use it from ground.

Best use of tjose ships is to send them in the mediteranean or in the north and pacific where they can move and strike better accross Europe. From the black sea, or the rivers inside Russia, they better use truck which are cheaper and faster to reload and relocate.

I still seriously consider, that you are not satisfied with the idea behind the whole river class navy they have made
Too small, not enough power and testosterone
It is all about lessons from the past, when the Soviet, or Imperial navy, had a real problem obtaining a privileged position at functionally any theatre of operations, even if it was bigger in general numbers than the opposing forces. They used to be divided into different fleets, distanced and separated, easily overwhelmed by the opponent, if needed.
Plus they lacked the spirit de corpse, but that is another story and a problem they need to sort out.
Now, they can concentrate dozens of additional starting platforms for universal missile systems any time they need, any place they want.
The modern Russian Navy can relocate dozens of hulks from the Baltic, Barents, Caspian, Azov, and Middeterenian easily.
If determined enough, they can push them along the NSR, from the Western theatre to the Pacific one, in just the same time USN would need to regroup the strike force from Atlantic to Pacific, and park them at any place, hidden by the Kuril archipelago protective chain.  
Covered with own shores, defense systems, and supplied.
We don't see it as an obvious thing, because till now, they have never conducted a maneuver, when let's say 20 ships carrying 8 Calibrs each, transfer from the Azov/Caspia/Med basin north, showing up themselves from nowhere, in the Baltic. Or floating out of a river just next to Murmansk, saying friendly "hello" to Norway, Iceland and the whole GIUK gap.
Those ships would be a 20kt displacement in total, handling 160 cruise missiles, or ASM, impossible to find&track, with force distribution requiring enormous assets placed to sort it out.  The assets that neither Norway nor UK has.
And we don't see it as clear, as there are "only" 20+/- pieces keen to be used this way.
But just wait, they are starting up, and that will end with about dozens of ships very soon.
Sure, you can shoot a Calibre from a lorry. A truck, a container, whatever.
But having two options is 100% better than having one, right?

ALAMO wrote:
Sure, you can shoot a Calibre from a lorry. A truck, a container, whatever.
But having two options is 100% better than having one, right?

Not only that.
Ground based Kalibr will have to fly West-East course pretty much. While sea-based Kalibr can also be launched from different seas and have North-South or South/East North/West courses.
Having missiles coming from different directions will complicate air-defense of the opponent.

In addition: Kalibrs are not only to be used against NATO targets in Europe, they are also intended to be used against other opponents elsewhere (and they have).

A functionally nonexistent air defense, worth adding.

Having missiles coming from different directions will complicate air-defense of the opponent.

NATO's air defense is very weak.  Russia can very quickly destroy NATO's key targets with the hypersonic kinzhal, the Cirkon and the less important Kalibr facilities.  In addition, when these small ships such as Buyan M or 22800 carry Cirkons, a large part of Europe will be within their range.  Exiting the INF Treaty will increase Iskander's range.  NATO is currently vulnerable to missile attacks from Russia.  Currently, it can perform a conventional attack with great precision and speed.  Even the USSR did not have this.
The same is true for CONUS.  Only the location away from Russia saves them
NATO has an advantage in aviation.

They don't need Kindzals to do so.
Folks, Yemeni are bombing Saudis any moment, place&need they consider, with US troops run away from the scene to avoid further humiliation.
The two biggest US bases in the region, just smashed with 30 years old Iranian missiles, presenting the SU level of the 70s ...
Europe air defense is not worth mentioning, considering the Saudi perspective/theatre.
And the shit that can be dropped on it, makes the Yemeni kids play with snowballs.
We have an opening scissors situation: not once, not 10, but 100x fold striking power against weaker AD.

ALAMO wrote:They don't need Kindzals to do so.

It is also about the speed of strike. Kinzhal or Cirkon give very little time for any reaction. They can destroy NATO's aviation assets before the planes take off. Destroy planes at airports, the runways themselves, destruction of air weapon warehouses etc.

ALAMO wrote:I still seriously consider, that you are not satisfied with the idea behind the whole river class navy they have made
Too small, not enough power and testosterone    
It is all about lessons from the past, when the Soviet, or Imperial navy, had a real problem obtaining a privileged position at functionally any theatre of operations, even if it was bigger in general numbers than the opposing forces. They used to be divided into different fleets, distanced and separated, easily overwhelmed by the opponent, if needed.
Plus they lacked the spirit de corpse, but that is another story and a problem they need to sort out.
Now, they can concentrate dozens of additional starting platforms for universal missile systems any time they need, any place they want.
The modern Russian Navy can relocate dozens of hulks from the Baltic, Barents, Caspian, Azov, and Middeterenian easily.
If determined enough, they can push them along the NSR, from the Western theatre to the Pacific one, in just the same time USN would need to regroup the strike force from Atlantic to Pacific, and park them at any place, hidden by the Kuril archipelago protective chain.  
Covered with own shores, defense systems, and supplied.
We don't see it as an obvious thing, because till now, they have never conducted a maneuver, when let's say 20 ships carrying 8 Calibrs each, transfer from the Azov/Caspia/Med basin north, showing up themselves from nowhere, in the Baltic. Or floating out of a river just next to Murmansk, saying friendly "hello" to Norway, Iceland and the whole GIUK gap.
Those ships would be a 20kt displacement in total, handling 160 cruise missiles, or ASM, impossible to find&track, with force distribution requiring enormous assets placed to sort it out.  The assets that neither Norway nor UK has.
And we don't see it as clear, as there are "only" 20+/- pieces keen to be used this way.
But just wait, they are starting up, and that will end with about dozens of ships very soon.
Sure, you can shoot a Calibre from a lorry. A truck, a container, whatever.
But having two options is 100% better than having one, right?

I don't really see what buyan in a closed sea, and the need to be always under the protection of the air force and air defence, provides more than a truck.

A buyan on a river is easy to spot with satelittes. A truck not.

A truck can be faster to relocate than a ship.

Karakurt on the opposite offers really needed capabilities with ocean going ability, nice air defence systems and radars. Buyan is just a floating barge for UKSK used in a closed sea.