Project 2038.0: Steregushchy Corvette

The meteor is only 100km and is still relying on its small radar. Chances that it is not immune to DRFM jaming are huge.

Su35 and 34 can carry fuel tanks too ... numbers still in favor of russia. Refueling can be made over the coast on way back. Even if they fall in water it is worth destroying a carrier.

Fuel tanks are removed quickly and make the rafale a biger target.

Supercruise doesn't recquire AB but still consume a lot of fuel. Range won't be 2000km. And if they remove tanks not that early and go far away they won't be able to go back.

Su-34 can carry big jammers making bvr fight totally unprobable. US navy's growlers made f-22 radar totally useless in tests, what do you think a meteor will see if you jamm ka and x bands totally.

You are talking like 1 meteor equal 1 target down. Russia tested ramjet missile long ago. If it was that much a gamer changer they would have produced them since long time ago. Its not even expensive as it has no moving parts.

1 kilo is enough. If 1 kalibr or torpedo hit such a full ships like you suggest then it will blow up because of its own weapon.

Have any air defences ever intercepted Exocet?

They have jammed lot of them. Pantsirs and tors are way better than any british or US system for downing missiles. Exocet has not evolved that much.

Didn't west launch a massive strike with 2 frigates, 3 fremms, us virginia class, typhoons from cyprus, type 45 destroyer, rafales and mirage from bases in France, B-1 from Qatar, F22, 4 mirage, over 8 tankers, f16, f15, and more equipment and it did...

Well Russia said 71 out of total 103 missiles were downed. With S-200, S-125, Pantsir, Buk, Kvadrat... They would have gotten embarrassed even worse attacking khmeiymim or Sevastopol. No counter air was used, no coastal defenses, no TU-22m3, basically nothing lol

That was two 11356, 2 kilos, some soviet SAMS, and basically not even 1/10 of Black Sea fleet, and they basically rendered this massive attack into a joke

marcellogo wrote:@vladimir 79

We seem to agree to disagree but now we argument it in better way.

I would so just contest a pair of your affirmation, the rest is not so radically different between one another, it seems me.

First , the French Fremm has not the double of firepower, they still have just 16 tubes for SAM and in their standard version they are limited to ASTER 15 only, other 16 tubes are for Scalp Naval, so they add nothing to their own self defence capability.
Above all their radar, a small PESA Herakles cannot handle ASTER 30 and also its advanced version, thought for the FREDA, will be still inferior to the AESA KRONOS 3D that is standard on all our own.

All of the French FREMM have 32 Sylver VLS launchers, your FREMM only have 16. The French FREMM have 1000km+ cruise missiles, yours do not. That is fact.

Just having  chosen such a radar more than compensate for the price of adding 16 A70 launch tubes.
Our ships also had the fittings for installing the same launchers, but we went for installing an 127mm OTO Melara and the "Pharmacy" instead i.e. an additional automated fast recharge ammo depot able to host about 400 ready to use VULCANO rds instead.

Both of your task forces operate with a Horizon as the eyes of the fleet. That massive search and track array made by Thales provides the targeting information for your Asters on all platforms. The other radars are redundancies aside from the French that use AWACs. I dare say the French have a better picture of the battlespace.

So, let's at the Cousins the illusion of playing the Great Power game with their 8 frigates instead of the planned 17 and a nuclear powered  CV that has passed way more time in repair than in service , we got our planned 10 and we have already passed at the next stages ordering seven PPA that would have a four faced two-band Kronos radar instead, something that just China (with Type 55) and partially the USN (with their ludicrous Zumwalt) actually have (waiting the Lider, obviously).
And they would have the land attack version of OTOMAT also.

The CdG is getting close to the 1 million nautical mile mark. You don't have any ships close to that. Your ships are like ours, a few to fly the flag while the rest rust for lack of an operating budget.

Same for the "green water" making only the 10% of your fleet.

Out of the new fleet. There are still Cold War relics gathering rust.

[quote="Vladimir79"All of the French FREMM have 32 Sylver VLS launchers, your FREMM only have 16.  The French FREMM have 1000km+ cruise missiles, yours do not.  That is fact.[/quote]
Yes, and?
On the the standard French FREMM none of such tubes can carry an ASTER 30.
Look, Vladimir , it is not the sail age anymore, class of ships are not determined by numbers of Gun carriers but by the overall capability of the sensors and of the other complement of a ship: in any single component our own ships trash the french ones, radars, ASM missiles, helicopters, security measures, Speed (31 against 27), range...

Both of your task forces operate with a Horizon as the eyes of the fleet. That massive search and track array made by Thales provides the targeting information for your Asters on all platforms. The other radars are redundancies aside from the French that use AWACs. I dare say the French have a better picture of the battlespace...

Ihave instead not any need to dare a thing, given that I have now the absolute certainty, given by your first absolutely unsubstantiated affirmation that you have absolutely no idea of what the KRONOS radar installed in our FREMMS is able to do.


 

So, let's at the Cousins the illusion of playing the Great Power game with their 8 frigates instead of the planned 17 and a nuclear powered  CV that has passed way more time in repair than in service , we got our planned 10 and we have already passed at the next stages ordering seven PPA that would have a four faced two-band Kronos radar instead, something that just China (with Type 55) and partially the USN (with their ludicrous Zumwalt) actually have (waiting the Lider, obviously).
And they would have the land attack version of OTOMAT also.

The CdG is getting close to the 1 million nautical mile mark.  You don't have any ships close to that.  Your ships are like ours, a few to fly the flag while the rest rust for lack of an operating budget.

 
Now, I didn't know because you have such a low opinion on your own fleet but actually my own country's fleet has been heavily employed by severals years in a row into the mission of saving refugees (or better illegal immigrants disguised as such) lives in Mediterranean sea.
Numbers of rescued persons speak for them and their efforts.
Saying that those dedicated men and women are just flying a flag is nothing short than an offensive statements.

Same for the "green water" making only the 10% of your fleet.

Out of the new fleet.  There are still Cold War relics gathering rust.  
[/quote]

If you consider consistent breakdowns, fires and other assorted operating problems a great engine... the problems have always been the engines. The only method of propulsion we have perfected is nuclear.

New production engines that they have never produced before... likely they didn't just copy the old models, they probably attempted to improve the design and materials to get an increase in performance... it is perfectly normal to have teething problems... there will likely be issues with the engines... so what... after a few years operational experience they will have worked out the issues and problems and solved them and new production engines will be fine.

The main experience with nuclear power plants in the Russian navy is with submarines, the Kirov has a combined nuke and conventional propulsion system because they didn't have nuclear PPs powerful enough for the job at the time and they have had no other NPP surface vessel in their navy except ice breakers.

When they build their first 20K ton destroyer with NPP they will likely have a period of issues and problems too, not to mention for their first CVN which will probably need half a dozen NPPs to propel it around the place, though the plastic model design showing a 45K ton multi hull design with a very large flat deck and much wider hull than normal that offers lots of internal volume and plenty of deck space... for as I said a rather light weight carrier design would be ideal and could probably be built for much less than the 13 billion or is it 20 billion now that Papadragon keeps on moaning about. Ironic because he thinks the solution is a 1.5 trillion dollar investment into an F-35B copy.

20380 is green, but 80% of our Navy is brown. A handful of corvettes and a fleet of missile boats and harbour patrol is not what we need.

I would say that is what you need.... a handful of corvettes and some missile boats and harbour patrol boats for each main port... what you don't need is a navy that only has such vessels and nothing bigger.

The US already learned the LCS was a mistake which is why they cut it off and have an order for a proper frigate.

By all means learn from the mistakes of others but be careful to learn the right lesson... the gun for the LCS failed because each round of ammo was going to cost more than it would have cost to fly an F-35 in to bomb the target... Only the Americans could make gun artillery more expensive than using missiles...

So our Carriers/ASW cruiser has more artillery, short range missiles and CIWS systems onboard than a Nimitz (in the case of Vittorio Veneto and Garibaldi we put even OTOMAT lauchers on them, Leningrad and Kiev did the same).

The Americans have traditionally been aircraft centric... their Army air defence equipment and resources is pathetic because they expect the US AF to be there to cover their operations... and they are the same with the Navy... the purpose of their carriers is to provide the strike force and air defence of the carrier group... whereas the Russian carriers are there to support the air defence and provide long range visibility of enemy action and positions using AWACS and combat air patrols.

Ironically the USN gave up that capability when it retired the F-14/Phoenix combination because it said there was no threat to carriers any more.... Hahahahahaha.

When houtis launched 2 iranian anti ship missiles at US cruiser they needed in total 2 sm-2 and 1 ESSM and jaming to counter that. Which means SM-2 missed. Against an iranian missile ...

When the US AEGIS class cruiser show down that Iranian Airbus in the 1980s there was a malfunction with the SAM and the launch was delayed 90 seconds... imagine if that was a real attack and the target was allowed to get a minute and a half closer to the target before the target could do anything?

Numbers play for Russia. Get over it. Carrier are totally useless if you have the right tools to destroy them and a trained army to operate them.

That is like saying a flak jacket wont stop every type of danger on the battlefield so why not save some money and not issue them to your troops.

The fact is that a carrier with a decent AWACS platform and decent fighters mean you can detect threats much earlier including sea skimming targets well over the radar horizon from surface ships radar, and you can also send out a group of fighters to investigate something suspicious and they can decide whether to open fire or not after having IDed the target or been fired upon by an enemy.
Even if they get shot down they should collect information about what shot them down and what was in the water nearby... the alternative is to do nothing until the threat gets hundreds of kms or even 1,000km closer to your ships... if the commander of that AEGIS class cruiser in Iranian waters had carrier support he could have called in an F-14 to check out the target, which would have visually identified the civilian airliner using the civilian IFF codes on an internationally recognised civilian flight path and 288 odd people would have survived...

A carrier is not ego, it is an important asset that improves information and options for a surface group of ships... what land force does not use aircraft (manned or unmanned) to support their planning and decision making as well as operations.

With the ability to super cruise with a drop tank they would be out of range of most of our fighters trying to chase them on their way out.

The Russians have been very quiet about new AAMs, but I suspect talk about ramjet powered R-77s and the development of scramjet motors for cruise missiles might mean that for the Su-57 the new AAMs they will be equipped with will include a very long range scramjet powered R-77.

A scramjet combines the speed of a rocket motor with the endurance of a jet engine... in fact at mach 7-9 it would be rather higher speed than a rocket motor but with a jet engines endurance... which should equate to a super meteor equivalent, but the purpose of aircraft on a Russian carrier is to protect the ships so their first priority would be engaging any low flying weapons launched by those Rafales, defending themselves from any missiles the Rafales might have launched at them, and shooting at the Rafales themselves... but all this time they will be passing data back to the ships they are operating with, so in effect they will be operating under a ship based S-400 and S-500 air defence network.

The Rafale MiG-CAP would never allow a tanker to take a station within that range so only Tu-22M3s are capable.

And now they are at the point of putting Zircon into service imagine a scaled up model for air launch the size and weight of the Kh-32 but with efficient scramjet propulsion...

Have any air defences ever intercepted Exocet? The British failed, the Americans failed... the new 3C upgrade brings an imaging seeker so countermeasures don't work. It flies so much closer to the waves than the other missiles I don't know how you see it without an AWACs look down capability.

The british were overconfident... they had Exocets in their own inventory and they thought their Sea Wolf and Sea Dart missiles would keep them safe... they were wrong.

I believe a few were shot down, but a few that were jammed and decoyed actually changed targets and sank civilian transport vessels that were with the military ships. I think the Atlantic Conveyor was hit and sunk this way and others.

Imaging seekers can be damaged or defeated with active DIRCMS...

It has data links to take targeting from other sources, even the Mica NG will be able to do this.

The MiG-29K has these too and the Su-33 is getting that in an upgrade.

Range favours the French, the Rafale gives them the reach to strike our shores and to stay well away from the majority of our defences.

Actually range wont be their advantage after a few strikes as they will likely rapidly run out of external fuel tanks unless they don't drop them.

France attacking Russia would be like Russia attacking France... pointless nuclear suicide.

You are talking like 1 meteor equal 1 target down. Russia tested ramjet missile long ago. If it was that much a gamer changer they would have produced them since long time ago. Its not even expensive as it has no moving parts.

I suspect they realised early on that scramjet would create a much better performing missile as they already have plenty of ramjet powered missiles so there is no reason why they would not already have a ramjet model in service... the Kh-31 family of missiles, the SA-6 SAM, the SA-4 SAM, and many of the current supersonic anti ship missiles from the Vulkan, the Granit, and the Onyx/Yakhont/Brahmos are all combined rocket/ramjet designs.

Note for long range a ramjet makes a lot of sense over the higher speed but shorter range rocket, but as rocket fuel performance improved the SA-4 and SA-6 were replaced by the solid fuelled SA-11 and SA-17 family of missiles and now the Viking missiles... it will be interesting to see the next gen of scramjet powered missiles extending the range and increasing the speed of missiles.

That was two 11356, 2 kilos, some soviet SAMS, and basically not even 1/10 of Black Sea fleet, and they basically rendered this massive attack into a joke

Plus they didn't actively respond against the launch platforms... or the HQ where the attacks were planned...

You know if I told you a joke about an Italian, and a person in France and a Russian discussing how the Russian Navy would get on against the navy of France... who would guess the positions taken on this forum...

Russia needs to expand its navy and it needs larger more capable ships, but not to take on France or the UK or the US, but to be Russia, to be independent and to be separate from the west as an alternative choice... just like China and eventually India will be.

And when they become alternative choices perhaps EU members will find the balls to surgically remove themselves from the US and have their own international policy... but I doubt it.

marcellogo wrote:
Yes, and?
On the the standard French FREMM none of such tubes can carry an ASTER 30.
Look, Vladimir , it is not the sail age anymore, class of ships are not determined by numbers of Gun carriers but by the overall capability of the sensors and of the other complement of a ship: in any single component our own ships trash the french ones, radars, ASM missiles, helicopters, security measures, Speed (31 against 27), range...

Actually the last two ASW FREMM, Bretagne and Normandie, have received SYLVER A50 launchers which can launch Aster 30.  During the next refitting of the first four they will also receive A50 launchers so all of them will be able to use Aster 30.

Look, Marcell , it is not the age of sail anymore.  class of ships are not determined by guns, it is determined by the number of VLS launchers it carries and the capabilities of those missiles.  French FREMM have twice as many as Italian FREMM with a LACM ability Italy doesn't have.  Your ships are under-armed versions of the French ones.  

Ihave instead not any need to dare a thing, given that I have now the absolute certainty, given by your first absolutely unsubstantiated affirmation that you have absolutely no idea of what the KRONOS radar installed in our FREMMS is able to do.

Kronos is a good radar, but it doesn't do much good if you run out of missiles.  It is nothing compared to the Thales radar on the Horizons, or an AWACs in the air which can all provide terminal guidance coordinates for Aster 30.

So, let's at the Cousins the illusion of playing the Great Power game with their 8 frigates instead of the planned 17 and a nuclear powered  CV that has passed way more time in repair than in service , we got our planned 10 and we have already passed at the next stages ordering seven PPA that would have a four faced two-band Kronos radar instead, something that just China (with Type 55) and partially the USN (with their ludicrous Zumwalt) actually have (waiting the Lider, obviously).
And they would have the land attack version of OTOMAT also.

They spend their money on CVNs, SSNs, SSBNs and still have a larger surface fleet than Italy.  You already forgot they are building 5 FDI frigates with Thales Sea Fire which is a better radar than Kronos.  Your FREMM are so under-armed the Singapore Lafayettes put your FREMM to shame.  

Now, I didn't know because you have such a low opinion on your own fleet but actually my own country's fleet has been heavily employed by severals years in a row into the mission of saving refugees (or better illegal immigrants disguised as such) lives in Mediterranean sea.
Numbers of rescued persons speak for them and their efforts.
Saying that those dedicated men and women are just flying a flag is nothing short than an offensive statements.

Your fleet is the personal ferry service of the Islamic take over of Europe... nice job.  You would be better off if you didn't have a navy.

Isos wrote:The meteor is only 100km and is still relying on its small radar. Chances that it is not immune to DRFM jaming are huge.

Su35 and 34 can carry fuel tanks too ... numbers still in favor of russia. Refueling can be made over the coast on way back. Even if they fall in water it is worth destroying a carrier.

Fuel tanks are removed quickly and make the rafale a biger target.

Supercruise doesn't recquire AB but still consume a lot of fuel. Range won't be 2000km. And if they remove tanks not that early and go far away they won't be able to go back.

Su-34 can carry big jammers making bvr fight totally unprobable. US navy's growlers made f-22 radar totally useless in tests, what do you think a meteor will see if you jamm ka and x bands totally.

You are talking like 1 meteor equal 1 target down. Russia tested ramjet missile long ago. If it was that much a gamer changer they would have produced them since long time ago. Its not even expensive as it has no moving parts.

1 kilo is enough. If 1 kalibr or torpedo hit such a full ships like you suggest then it will blow up because of its own weapon.

The Meteor's range is far greater than 100km.  Based on the graph provided by MBDA it is more like 300km. Check the 3:00 mark.



The revolutionary thing about Meteor is that once the rocket booster gets it into ramjet cruise mode, it can throttle its fuel burn for maximum efficiency to get the longest range for intercept.

The problem with trying to jam Meteor is that it uses a data link that can take targeting data from multiple sources for terminal guidance. It uses the same seeker as the Aster 30 so once it goes active, that is your only chance to jam it.  By that time its active seeker is close enough a DRFM wouldn't have enough power to jam it.

If the Sukhois are carrying anti-shipping missiles, then they won't be carrying drop tanks.  The actual supply of drop tanks for Sukhois is limited as we never intended to use it that way.  That is why we maintain a fleet of strategic bombers.  The Rafale on the other hand never goes into combat without drop tanks and have a steady supply made at a Swiss factory.  

The definition of Supecruise is going Mach speeds without afterburner, it is an efficient cruising speed that doesn't use much fuel.  Hence the term... cruise.  The regime that uses too much fuel is the transonic regime immediately above and below Mach 1 from Mach 0.9 to Mach 1.1.  That is where you don't want to fly if you are trying to conserve fuel as the wave drag makes the engines work harder.

Su-34 requires big jammers because it has a big RCS.  It is not the same kind used by Growlers.  

Meteor has yet to fail one of its tests and they are used against little target drones.  The RCS of Su-34 is about 50 times larger.  

1 Kilo can fire 4 Kalibr, that is nothing to an Aster defence much less the Rafale flying overhead with dozens of Mica.

GarryB wrote:
New production engines that they have never produced before... likely they didn't just copy the old models, they probably attempted to improve the design and materials to get an increase in performance... it is perfectly normal to have teething problems... there will likely be issues with the engines... so what... after a few years operational experience they will have worked out the issues and problems and solved them and new production engines will be fine.

The main experience with nuclear power plants in the Russian navy is with submarines, the Kirov has a combined nuke and conventional propulsion system because they didn't have nuclear PPs powerful enough for the job at the time and they have had no other NPP surface vessel in their navy except ice breakers.

The funny thing is we actually had to pay off Ukrainians working at their plant to smuggle the technical documents out of Ukraine and give them jobs building it here.  How we didn't have the plans in Russia is beyond me but this actually happened.  We didn't have time to make improvements, they were needed 5 years ago.  

If we can make a nuclear ice breaker we should be able to make a nuclear destroyer... right?  

When they build their first 20K ton destroyer with NPP they will likely have a period of issues and problems too, not to mention for their first CVN which will probably need half a dozen NPPs to propel it around the place, though the plastic model design showing a 45K ton multi hull design with a very large flat deck and much wider hull than normal that offers lots of internal volume and plenty of deck space... for as I said a rather light weight carrier design would be ideal and could probably be built for much less than the 13 billion or is it 20 billion now that Papadragon keeps on moaning about. Ironic because he thinks the solution is a 1.5 trillion dollar investment into an F-35B copy.

The propulsion system should already be complete if using something similar to 22220.  The Redut from Gorshkov is finally ready so putting that on it should not be a problem.  Once the Nakhimov tests the universal VLS should work out any bugs integrating that.  I don't care if it is only a 50k tonne carrier, but it needs catapults and forget about adding ASM launch cells.  It needs the hanger space.

Mach 3 is min speed for ramjet. Meteor can throtle as much as it want it will need continuous power to sustain such speeds. And needs lot of power.

Kh-31 which is bigger and mach4.5 3.5 which is a normal speed for ramjet and also the typical speed of french air to air missiles, doesn't have such range.

Your video is only an add. I also saw a video made by sukhoi about su35 downing mulitiple typhoon equiped with meteors. They mean nothing. There is no technical data about that. Rafale's radar the aesa is quoted by its pilot to have a range of 200km. Unless you bring any real proof I won't believe that.

Datalinks are also jamable. Especially link 16 which is used by nato since 50 years and very well known by russian and chinese.

Supercruise still need much more fuel than subsonic cruise.

The main advantage of Supercruise is the ability to operate without afterburners, which consume large amounts of fuel. Afterburners generally have specific fuel consumption (SFC) of over 1.80 to 2.5, but Supercruising aircraft like the Concorde can have SFC lower than 1.2. This is twice most modern subsonic airliners, but half the consumption of supersonic aircraft using afterburners.

2 times more according to that.

Su-34 requires big jammers because it has a big RCS.  It is not the same kind used by Growlers.  

It also have the full jammer version with the big central one. Similar to growler. Common Soviet tactics was overwhelming number of bombers with hundreds of missiles and multiple jammer planes. This still can be done when the carrier is near the shores. Specially against a small group like french one.

Edit: I totally forgot to mention all the cheap suicide drones that can be used to attack carrier groups. They are cheaper than missiles, longer range, small rcs and small speed which makes them very hard targets because radars have difficulties detecting slow flying objects. They will oblige the opponent to use its expensive aster and SM-2. US at least have quad pack missile and russian have pantsirs. French aster will be overwhelmed and they will end up with empty silos before they manage to come close enough to do anything. Say thanks to US that's their idea to destroy s-400.

Wikipedia is not allowed.

LCS has a 57mm gun. The one with the expensive ammunition (which will not be poduced) is Zumwalt.

Vladimir79 wrote:.....The propulsion system should already be complete if using something similar to 22220.  The Redut from Gorshkov is finally ready so putting that on it should not be a problem.  Once the Nakhimov tests the universal VLS should work out any bugs integrating that.  I don't care if it is only a 50k tonne carrier, but it needs catapults and forget about adding ASM launch cells.  It needs the hanger space.

You are completely ignoring insane technological advantage that Russian adversaries have in your own admission. And the fact that even if they improve others will not be standing still and will match and exceed several fold every improvement Russians make.  



Lets assume for a moment that Russia can by some miracle actually builds a CVN and by some even greater miracle they don't suffer bankruptcy, societal collapse and famine in order to pay for it (yet again).


They will have CVN  which will face enemy with overwhelming technological superiority. Let's go with lowest common denominator and assume that they will face French Navy:


- Primitive Russian radars will not be able to detect anything on either water or in the air before it's too late (or at all).

- Obsolete Russian aircraft will be blown out of the sky by superior aircraft (Rafalle) and missiles (Meteor) before they even know enemy is there (those few that even manage to take off). Sukhois are 80s era junk, Su-35 is just repackaged 80s era junk for export and T-50 is dead on arrival as has been already pointed out.

- Russian escort frigates will be sunk by superior enemy missiles (Scalp) long before  they can detect the enemy or launch their inaccurate missiles with oversized warheads.

- Those  few missiles that do get launched by Russian ships will all be intercepted by superior AA missiles (Aster).

- And in the end whole misbegotten Russian CVN will be blown out of the water along with everyone on board. Whole event will last less than 30 minutes, give or take.



An this is just playing on easy against low grade fleet like French. Facing enemy with actual navy like Japan, UK or South Korea would be infinitely worse, I don't think it could be even called combat, more like massacre (as if French scenario wasn't one already)

Even something like China could mop the floor with Russian CSG.

Out of respect for valiant men and women of USN I will not describe scenario which would involve them because to pit them (even hypothetically) against such inferior adversary would be disservice to them and to equipment they wield, one which makes everything else on the planet (UK, Japanese, French...) look like used condom.


There is no catching up to technological advantage you described and that Russian adversaries posses, one which will keep growing ever larger as time goes by.




In this situation any further investment in Russian surface fleet is criminal negligence and ordering Russian sailors to board and operate surface vessels would be mass murder and high treason.

Best course of action would be to immediately disband the surface navy, scrap all vessels and redirect all funds to branches of military that could be at least theoretically capable of
actually fighting the enemy even if winning remains hopelessly out of reach.

Isos wrote:Mach 3 is min speed for ramjet. Meteor can throtle as much as it want it will need continuous power to sustain such speeds. And needs lot of power.

Kh-31 which is bigger and mach4.5 3.5 which is a normal speed for ramjet and also the typical speed of french air to air missiles, doesn't have such range.

Your video is only an add. I also saw a video made by sukhoi about su35 downing mulitiple typhoon equiped with meteors. They mean nothing. There is no technical data about that. Rafale's radar the aesa is quoted by its pilot to have a range of 200km. Unless you bring any real proof I won't believe that.

I didn't post it for the simulated combat, I posted it for the range graph.  It is an official marketing material that MBDA claims can go 300km.  Whether you believe it is propaganda or not isn't debatable as you are the only one that can decide what you believe. I just state the facts.    

Datalinks are also jamable. Especially link 16 which is used by nato since 50 years and very well known by russian and chinese.

We have successfully jammed their military grade GPS signal but I have yet to see one instance where we have jammed Link 16.  50 years old?  Righhhht... what they used in Vietnam is the same thing they use today.  

Supercruise still need much more fuel than subsonic cruise.

It is about the same for distance, you cruise at twice the speed you go twice as far for the same amount of running time.  The Rafale has the lowest SFC engines of any fighter flying today.  The thing was made for high payloads and long ranges.      

2 times more according to that.

You can't compare a fighter jet to an airliner.  You can only compare it to the SFC of its own engines.  A Rafale doing a subsonic cruise at 50% thrust would use roughly half the fuel of it running at military thrust.  With a supercruise at twice the speed of its subsonic cruise, it would go the same distance using roughly the same amount of fuel but do it in half the time.    

It also have the full jammer version with the big central one. Similar to growler. Common Soviet tactics was overwhelming number of bombers with hundreds of missiles and multiple jammer planes. This still can be done when the carrier is near the shores. Specially against a small group like french one.

Khibiny are for self defence, SAP-14 can act as an escort jammer, but it doesn't jam at the source like a Growler. I doubt it would be much of a problem for the AESA radar of the Rafale to cut through.  Jamming a 1000 module AESA is not easy for a Growler, much less a series of jammers no one wants to buy.  When we export Sukhois they are always buying foreign jammers.    

Edit: I totally forgot to mention all the cheap suicide drones that can be used to attack carrier groups. They are cheaper than missiles, longer range, small rcs and small speed which makes them very hard targets because radars have difficulties detecting slow flying objects. They will oblige the opponent to use its expensive aster and SM-2. US at least have quad pack missile and russian have pantsirs. French aster will be overwhelmed and they will end up with empty silos before they manage to come close enough to do anything. Say thanks to US that's their idea to destroy s-400.

If the French carrier is 1000km+ off of our coast, what suicide drone would we use to attack it?  How would it be better than supersonic AShMs?  The French have several Mistral launchers on their carriers, they are really good at shooting down drones in the air or on the sea.  I think it would be better to have super long range torpedo drones that you could drop from an aircraft that would bug out and ride them to the target.  

Vlad what was the point of banning everyone? You are even more critical than they are ! In your own words Russia will be obliterated by one carrier group and there is no chance, everything will be in flames and done for. Like Shemyakin at Dubosekovo. They will kill us all with Panzers, and advanced german weapons, russians only have sticks and will be run down without a chance. How did it all turn out? As I said before an attack like the one you described happened, Fremm, Rafale, Mdcn, Scalpel, Storm Shadows, Tomahawks, B-1, Carrier, RAF base Akrotiri, Typhoons, Type 45

Russia had 2 kilos, 2 11356, Syrian S-200, Pantsir, Buk, Kub, and 73 out of 103 missiles were downed. S-400 did not work, countermeasures not even taken, coastal defenses did not work. Not work as in were not used.

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/20509/this-awesome-chart-shows-all-the-assets-used-in-the-trilateral-missile-strikes-on-syria

You do not want Wikipedia fine I will pull the source from the works cited

I didn't post it for the simulated combat, I posted it for the range graph.  It is an official marketing material that MBDA claims can go 300km.  Whether you believe it is propaganda or not isn't debatable as you are the only one that can decide what you believe. I just state the facts.    

It is an ad. No real data. MRAAM are always quoted to have the max range in the best configuration. Just like your map of french bombs going above Hmeimim there is nothing real in that.

We have successfully jammed their military grade GPS signal but I have yet to see one instance where we have jammed Link 16.  50 years old?  Righhhht... what they used in Vietnam is the same thing they use today.

Link 16 is just a signal that russians and chinesz keep analyzing. The further the missile goes from the launch aircraft the more it will be affected by jaming signal. A brut jammer so that it doesn't detect the real one will be perfect.

Khibiny are for self defence, SAP-14 can act as an escort jammer, but it doesn't jam at the source like a Growler. I doubt it would be much of a problem for the AESA radar of the Rafale to cut through.  Jamming a 1000 module AESA is not easy for a Growler, much less a series of jammers no one wants to buy.  When we export Sukhois they are always buying foreign jammers

Enough to jam a small no-AESA radar.

If the meteor is so perfect why aren't only buying that instead of Mica ?

If the French carrier is 1000km+ off of our coast, what suicide drone would we use to attack it?  How would it be better than supersonic AShMs?  The French have several Mistral launchers on their carriers, they are really good at shooting down drones in the air or on the sea.  I think it would be better to have super long range torpedo drones that you could drop from an aircraft that would bug out and ride them to the target.  

One big enough to carry large amount of fuel for 2000km and a camera in the nose with some gps/communication tools and passive radar.

They won't destroy any ship but they will make the ships spend all their missiles. For a large country like Russia producing 2 or 3000 of them is easy task. Just launch them all day and then send bombers.

Smaller ones could be launched from cargo plane 1000km away from the carrier.

Total air assets used in 2018 Syria strikes:
Tankers
4 KC-135R (USA)
5 KC-10 Extender (USA)
6 C-135 (French Stratotankers)

Recon

(1) RC-135V Rivet joint (USA)
(2) RQ-4B Global Hawk (USA)
(1) E-11A (USA)
(2) E-3F (French)

Escorts
(12) F-15C (USA)
(4) F-22A (USA)
(12) F-16C (USA)
(4) Mirage-2000-5 (French)
(1) EA-6B Prowler (USA)
(4) Eurofighter Typhoon (UK)

Strike Platforms
(4) Tornado-GR.4 (UK)
(5) Rafale-b (French)
(2) B1-B Lancer (USA)

Deployed Weapons:36 missiles
(.8.) Storm Shadow (UK)
(19) AGM-158A JASSM (USA)
(9) Scalp-EG (French)

Total naval assets:
(1) Type F70 AS (French)
(1) Type F70 AA (French)
(3) FREMM (French)
(1) AOR class (French)
(1) Type-45 class (UK)
(1) Virginia class (USA)
(2) Arleigh burke class (USA)
(1) Ticonderoga class (USA)

Naval Weapons:
(3) MdCN (French)
(6) UGM-109E Block IV (USA)
(60) RGM-109E Block IV (USA)

As you can see the amount of aircraft, assets like tankers and recon, weapons used is basically a carrier strike group. About 37 aircraft, basically the carrier group itself, destroyers, frigates, submarine, basically 103 land attack missiles. As I said before it did nothing.

20380 is a great ship, with domestic engines, and will be improved, paket makes it excellent asw platform, with standoff ability. In groups it can project power offshore and extend the A2AD perimeter hundreds of kilometers. Bunch of Gorshkov-m's would be overkill in black sea and sea of okhotsk or baltic sea

Vladimir79 wrote:...Your fleet is the personal ferry service of the Islamic take over of Europe... nice job. You would be better off if you didn't have a navy.

And how the hell is this supposed to be bad for Russia?

Last time I checked it was White Europeans who have been trying to exterminate Russians for at least couple of centuries, probably longer.

Once Arabs/Latinos replace Whites in Europe/USA they will be busy dealing with Latin America and whatever caliphates deal with and Russians will be able to finally cool of.

If anything they will be far less efficient in exterminating Russians than White Europeans were.


If Russians were smart they would send those Bykov-class patrol ships to Mediterranean to help out with deliveries to Europe.

They should also order another batch of Bykovs to speed up the process.

The funny thing is we actually had to pay off Ukrainians working at their plant to smuggle the technical documents out of Ukraine and give them jobs building it here. How we didn't have the plans in Russia is beyond me but this actually happened. We didn't have time to make improvements, they were needed 5 years ago.

It is always amusing to hear the rats of the former eastern block tell us how bad everything was under Russian oppression (specifically Russian oppression mind you... their own countrymen were blameless) yet they all seemed to have been largely subsidised and supported by the Soviet Union... sorry to say, but cutting off that dead wood was the best thing that ever happened to Russia and the longer they can keep their distance the better for Russia... they are just leeches looking for a host to feed off.

I rather suspect changes will be made to the design, simply for the purposes of making the engines... I expect current Russian tooling is a bit better than current Ukrainian tooling and that they have more options in fabricating parts than the Orcs do. Often many innovations occur on the factory floor while things are being built, and they could certainly have a design team or two looking at the existing designs and working to make them more effective or efficient or more powerful.

If we can make a nuclear ice breaker we should be able to make a nuclear destroyer... right?

Very true, but the problem there exists too... a destroyer will need to move rather faster than an icebreaker ever needs to move, so multiple reactors will be needed even for ships of similar weight the destroyer will need more to get the better speed.

The other factor is that they might want to go for electric drive which will be complex and interesting and ultimately rather useful.

The propulsion system should already be complete if using something similar to 22220. The Redut from Gorshkov is finally ready so putting that on it should not be a problem. Once the Nakhimov tests the universal VLS should work out any bugs integrating that. I don't care if it is only a 50k tonne carrier, but it needs catapults and forget about adding ASM launch cells. It needs the hanger space.

If the UKSK-M is truly universal and includes SAMs (ie up to S-500) then I think that having them on the CVN would be worth the bother... simply because I think it will be useful to have such an anti ballistic weapon on board the ship, and also the anti sub ballistic missiles like 91ER1 that the UKSK launcher can use is a high speed response launch weapon for use against any enemy subs detected near the carrier... a mach 2 40km range weapon that can drop a torpedo within a km or so of an enemy sub is rather useful especially when the sub wont know it is under attack until the torpedo splashes into the water very close by...

Indeed cats are a must because the whole purpose is situational awareness and target detection for the surface ships and subs nearby and you only get that with a real and proper AWACS... the Ka-31/35 AEW is much better than nothing but a proper AWACS platform is what it is all about.

And it is not about having them because america and france and the uk have them, it is about giving your surface ships proper air support.

It wont win WWIII, but for the peace time use its value will be enormous in terms of information and target and threat detection.

Mach 3 is min speed for ramjet. Meteor can throtle as much as it want it will need continuous power to sustain such speeds. And needs lot of power.

Not strictly true, a ramjet will operate in a fairly wide range of speeds, though it will be more efficient at higher speeds it can still operate at very low speeds.

The I-15 polikarpov biplane was fitted with ramjet engines to test it to see what performance increase it achieved... despite the added drag of two rather large ramjets under its lower wings they boosted top speed by about 60-70km per hour from memory.

Kh-31 which is bigger and mach 3.5 which is a normal speed for ramjet and also the typical speed of french air to air missiles, doesn't have such range.

The first model Kh-31s didn't have amazing performance, the upgraded models were good to about 200-240km from memory.

The Meteor will be operating at higher altitudes where performance is much better.

Supercruise still need much more fuel than subsonic cruise.

Not really. Supercruise means travelling often twice as fast as a subsonic equivalent, without the 3 to 4 times more fuel consumption of using an afterburner.

In effect they often end up burning more fuel but getting to the destination in half the time so it burns more fuel per minute but not double the fuel burn, yet it covers ground at twice the speed so in effect probably uses less fuel and takes much less time.

2 times more according to that.

Two times more fuel per hour but travelling twice as fast, so without the supercruise it might take 6 hours to travel 3,000km at 5 tons of fuel per hour so 5 times 6 hours means you are using 30 tons of fuel to travel 3,000km. With supercruise you use twice as much fuel per hour... which means 10 tons of fuel per hour, but you are also going twice as fast so it only takes 3 hours to travel 3,000km, so three hours at 10 tons of fuel per hour means you use... 30 tons of fuel to fly 3,000km so practically the same amount of fuel but you do it in half the time.

Most importantly in full AB you might travel even faster so it only takes 2 hours to fly 3,000km but you burn fuel at a much higher rate of 25 tons of fuel per hour... so the 3,000km flight will burn 50 tons of fuel... the aircraft might only be able to carry 40 tons so you either need to top up with inflight refuelling or you will need to land to refuel.

LCS has a 57mm gun. The one with the expensive ammunition (which will not be poduced) is Zumwalt.

It is American... I am sure they will find a way to make it expensive...

You are completely ignoring insane technological advantage that Russian adversaries have in your own admission. And the fact that even if they improve others will not be standing still and will match and exceed several fold every improvement Russians make.

Russia does not need carriers to fight France or the UK or the US or anyone else... the best way to fight those countries is with ICBMs and SLBMs, or at a tactical level with Zircon.

Russia needs a carrier to protect its surface fleet of ships and subs so they can operate anywhere around the world with a chance of operating safely... the carrier is eyes and ears and air defence expansion/extension for the navy.

Lets assume for a moment that Russia can by some miracle actually builds a CVN and by some even greater miracle they don't suffer bankruptcy, societal collapse and famine in order to pay for it (yet again).

A Russian carrier might cost 4-6 billion but that will be paid over the decade and a half it will take to get it into the water... it is a force multiplier... and not everyone can afford them but having a group of large ships operating with a carrier is effectively the equivalent of having a much larger group of large ships which wont be any cheaper or safer than buying a carrier.

- Primitive Russian radars will not be able to detect anything on either water or in the air before it's too late (or at all).

They would be much worse off without air based AWACS support.

- Obsolete Russian aircraft will be blown out of the sky by superior aircraft (Rafalle) and missiles (Meteor) before they even know enemy is there (those few that even manage to take off). Sukhois are 80s era junk, Su-35 is just repackaged 80s era junk for export and T-50 is dead on arrival as has been already pointed out.

They have 10-15 years to improve them.

- Russian escort frigates will be sunk by superior enemy missiles (Scalp) long before they can detect the enemy or launch their inaccurate missiles with oversized warheads.

If the surface group consists of only Frigates and Corvettes then it wont be a global fleet... with destroyers and cruisers the French will suffer what a frigate and corvette based Russian force would suffer.

- Those few missiles that do get launched by Russian ships will all be intercepted by superior AA missiles (Aster).

A force with larger ships will carry rather more missiles and rather more potent missiles.

An this is just playing on easy against low grade fleet like French. Facing enemy with actual navy like Japan, UK or South Korea would be infinitely worse, I don't think it could be even called combat, more like massacre (as if French scenario wasn't one already)

What makes you think any of those navies are better than the French navy?

Even something like China could mop the floor with Russian CSG.

They don't even have any aircraft for their carriers... they would fare poorly against Backfires with Kh-32s and Onyx missiles let alone MiG-31s with Kinzhals.

Out of respect for valiant men and women of USN I will not describe scenario which would involve them because to pit them (even hypothetically) against such inferior adversary would be disservice to them and to equipment they wield, one which makes everything else on the planet (UK, Japanese, French...) look like used condom.

Oh please... they couldn't even operate near Russian waters and that is without using the navy, which I would admit would not trouble them much but why would it?

Russia could certainly not face any of the worlds major navies WITHOUT A CVN. You claim it is a reason not to bother, so in effect you are saying that countries like France and the UK and South Korea will be able to dictate to Russia what happens in places where they have strength.

Sure sometimes that is inevidible... I mean even in georgia in 2008 even the mighty all powerful USN was reduced to using strong language simply because it was not in a position to effect the outcome in any way.

If it was Venezuela we were talking about even now the Russians are not in a position to send a surface group to scare the Americans off, but that is the eventual goal because if they don't bother then the US will just dictate terms and bully anyone who wants to cooperate with Russia and Russia will be isolated and cornered... China isn't going to help and neither will Japan or UK or France... Russian needs to do it themselves... and the boost in international trade will pay for it all and more.

If Russia wants to expand its capabilities... plasma TVs for instance... they wont sell any in the US or Europe and Asia has the market all sewn up, but in Africa and central and south america where the love value of the ruble, they can buy a cheap Russian TV for a fraction of the cost of a European one and even cheaper than an Asian one... use the money earned to improve quality and technology and performance and pretty soon you will be competing with the best anywhere and the value of the ruble means you can undercut any western maker... the only thing that would stop you is that the country you sell them to has just been overthrown by the CIA so they can sell their mineral wealth to the US companies... what are you going to do about it?

There is no catching up to technological advantage you described and that Russian adversaries posses, one which will keep growing ever larger as time goes by.

Of course... you can't win so don't even bother.... you are whipped boy... how sad...

Russia does not need to match the US in numbers, and if the US needs to concentrate more forces to match Russia that just means more targets.

Two CVNs along with the Kuznetsov means a minimum of two carriers should be available at any one time... sometimes all three will be there.

Instead of crappy F-35s they can go for Su-57Ks... they wont make a huge number of carrier based fighters so they should be the best they can make.

In this situation any further investment in Russian surface fleet is criminal negligence and ordering Russian sailors to board and operate surface vessels would be mass murder and high treason.

Best course of action would be to immediately disband the surface navy, scrap all vessels and redirect all funds to branches of military that could be at least theoretically capable of
actually fighting the enemy even if winning remains hopelessly out of reach.

Did you quote directly from the US State Department leaflet on WWIII with Russia, or did you paraphrase it?

I didn't post it for the simulated combat, I posted it for the range graph. It is an official marketing material that MBDA claims can go 300km. Whether you believe it is propaganda or not isn't debatable as you are the only one that can decide what you believe. I just state the facts.

If the CVN fighter is an Su-57K model then it will have the R-37M at the very least but in 10-15 years it will probably have a scramjet powered missile with much much better performance.

Note the advantage of scramjet over ramjet is a bit like supercruise... very similar fuel burn rate but operating at more than twice the speed... a mach 9 AAM would be a rather potent weapon as it would leave the target very little time to respond... I mean moving at about 3km per second we are talking about a minute and a half to fly 270km...

Vlad what was the point of banning everyone? You are even more critical than they are ! In your own words Russia will be obliterated by one carrier group and there is no chance, everything will be in flames and done for.

He is talking about pitting the French navy against a frigate and corvette based green navy for Russia. He is suggesting that large ships like destroyers and cruisers and aircraft carriers are worth the enormous cost.

And I agree with him.

Or are you suggesting that the Russian Army and the Strategic missile forces can defend Russia and so the cost of the Russian Air force and Aerospace Defence forces is just an expensive waste of time and effort and money.

If the meteor is so perfect why aren't only buying that instead of Mica ?

A ramjet powered AAM is a good idea, but a scramjet powered one would be even better...

If the French carrier is 1000km+ off of our coast, what suicide drone would we use to attack it? How would it be better than supersonic AShMs? The French have several Mistral launchers on their carriers, they are really good at shooting down drones in the air or on the sea. I think it would be better to have super long range torpedo drones that you could drop from an aircraft that would bug out and ride them to the target.

Well now that the INF treaty is being deep sixed, they could develop 3-4 thousand km range ground launched missiles with scramjet propulsion that could be adapted to fit into their new UKSK-M launch tubes... it would be very useful...

Excuse me Garry but I believe the comment in response to witch you wrote your essay was infact sarcastic.

No sane person would would write such tripe in earnest!

GarryB wrote:...Russia does not need carriers to fight France or the UK or the US or anyone else... the best way to fight those countries is with ICBMs and SLBMs, or at a tactical level with Zircon....

So why waste time on surface navy if they don't need it to fight countries that represent a threat?

GarryB wrote:...Russia needs a carrier to protect its surface fleet of ships and subs so they can operate anywhere around the world with a chance of operating safely... the carrier is eyes and ears and air defence expansion/extension for the navy....

They will never operate safely because they will be outnumbered and outgunned every single time.

And again, why would the need to operate anywhere far enough to need CVN? What is so important out there?

Unless you are advocating neocolonialism enforced by Russia?

I know I advocate it so it would make sense if I would support CVN approach but you don't so what gives?

GarryB wrote:...They have 10-15 years to improve them....

And so do their enemies with a massive head start as administrator has already pointed out. There is no catching up in those circumstances.  

GarryB wrote:...If the surface group consists of only Frigates and Corvettes then it wont be a global fleet... with destroyers and cruisers the French will suffer what a frigate and corvette based Russian force would suffer....

Destroyers and cruisers would be obliterated long before they even detect the enemy given technological superiority of the enemy, size doesn't help there.

GarryB wrote:...A force with larger ships will carry rather more missiles and rather more potent missiles....

Which would all be intercepted by technologically superior enemy missiles (Aster)

Only thing you accomplish with larger ships in that scenario are more casualties when those large ships are destroyed.

GarryB wrote:...What makes you think any of those navies are better than the French navy?...

They are Navies of Japan and South Korea.

Actual maritime powers who actually rely on their navies for defense and are not some appendages of USN whose only claim to combat record is acting as dung beatles after USN does all the heavy lifting.

What role would French navy have in real war without USN?

Koreans and Japanese are capable of facing opposition alone and are ready for it if need be. French not so much.

GarryB wrote:...They don't even have any aircraft for their carriers... they would fare poorly against Backfires with Kh-32s and Onyx missiles let alone MiG-31s with Kinzhals....

Backfires and MiGs are not ships.

Thank you for proving me right about redundancy of surface navy.

GarryB wrote:...Oh please... they couldn't even operate near Russian waters and that is without using the navy, which I would admit would not trouble them much but why would it?...

And reason for it was not Russian surface fleet, it was everything else that Russia has which is all land-based or dives under water.

GarryB wrote:...Of course... you can't win so don't even bother.... ....

I am not the one who postulates that even 2nd tier military tech like French has overwhelming superiority over Russian one.

If you don't like it take it up with person who made those claims.

I would understand those claims about US tech but French? Please...

GarryB wrote:...Russia does not need to match the US in numbers, and if the US needs to concentrate more forces to match Russia that just means more targets....

It can't match them and US has way more ammo than Russian navy will ever provide enough targets for

GarryB wrote:...Two CVNs along with the Kuznetsov means a minimum of two carriers should be available at any one time... sometimes all three will be there....

Kuznetsov is gone. And they would have to sacrifice rest of the military to pay for those CVNs

GarryB wrote:...Instead of crappy F-35s they can go for Su-57Ks... they wont make a huge number of carrier based fighters so they should be the best they can make....

Su-57 is junk according to administrator.

And by the time they get it to fly off the carrier F-35 will be replaced by next model.

Even Rafales are apparently superior to anything Russia has.

GarryB wrote:...Did you quote directly from the US State Department leaflet on WWIII with Russia, or did you paraphrase it?...

I can quote from McNamara's personal dream journal if I want to, it still changes nothing.

If what administrator claims is true then it's the same situation as when that blogger claimed that USN anti-sub aircraft immediately detected all 12 Russian submarines during exercises.

If true then it means that enemy has unreachable technological advantage and that any further investments in Russian submarine fleet are pointless


Same applies here: if even somebody like French have that kind of superiority then any further investments in Russian surface fleet are pointless.

Technological advantage described here is not something that can ever be reached by Russia. Even if they make progress enemies will not be standing in one place.

Do they have that kind of advantage or not? If not then no problem. If yes then Russia better cut it's losses.

The-thing-next-door wrote:Excuse me Garry but I believe the comment in response to witch you wrote your essay was infact sarcastic.

No sane person would would write such tripe in earnest!

I doubt he would be that disrespectful to mock the administrator a second time. He is only so forgiving.  Let me tell you, when he wrote that global announcement telling people to respect each other regardless of their views, he wasn't joking.  If you can't have a civil discussion with the administrator, how can he expect you to do so with anyone else?  

Say what you mean, mean what you say. I will respect you either way.

Off topic much

In any case 20380 has nothing to do with confronting the french fleet, 20380 is being stationed in Baltic Sea and Sea of Okhotsk, and I posted details of an attack involving all of the weapons the administrator is talking about. Those weapons attacked a "chemical research site" they did not launch any of those missiles at S-400 or S-300, so we do not know the effective performance of those platforms, except that majority were downed by soviet era SAM's.

20380 is a good supplement with bigger ships of course, but that is no reason to stop building this ship. It is decently armed and within its areas of responsibility, Baltic sea and sea of Okhotsk it is perfect, the navies which 20380 will be facing are: Polish, Swedish, Finnish, Baltics, those NATO countries do not have much of a navy anyway so it doesn't help the argument to stop building this ship. In Okhotsk sea I do not sea these ships operating outside the kuril island chain and the probable navy it faces is Japanese. These are ASW corvettes, they are not meant to operate facing the US of French navies on open seas. They are hunting subs, and doing anti-shipping close to Russian waters. None of the points made by the admin or the supporting arguments make any sense in relation to 20380 and the threats it faces, if it is a call to bigger ships fine, but do not say 20380 is a waste of time

Design a whole other ship? They have 7 of these practically in service already including the one project 20385 coming soon. Totally there is planned: 6 - 20380 for baltic fleet + 4 for pacific fleet with 2 project 20385. These ships are not meant for long distance patrol, the projects 20385 might be able to conduct serious anti sub or anti shipping operations a little farther from kuril islands, but they're not meant to go to indian ocean or farther blue waters. Add to that Admiral Nakhimov, Varyag, Udaloys, and the gorshkovs, which recently 2 more were laid down, and you have a blue ocean force. Add the submarines based at Vladivostok, and it is a balanced force and that is for the Pacific side only. All they miss is a carrier.

At Kamchatka base there will be 1241 upgraded, tarantul upgraded, and soon karakurts, grishas are outdated and need replacing, 20380 perfectly fulfills the roles of grisha and 1241(nanuchka) or tarantul. Karakurt will also accelerate the modernization of all frigates and corvettes there which are needed to protect from incursions of enemy subs, ships into sea of okhotsk for which destroyers are overkill. Large ships of pacific fleet should be operating past the kuril islands, not worrying about coastal operations. Within the island chain barrier, corvettes and frigates to their job reliably to secure Russian Federation