Russian Naval Construction Plans and Numbers

Podlodka77 wrote:

PapaDragon wrote:
Ulyanovsk is Yasen-class not Khabarovsk

Can we please stop with this bullshit already?

One journalists was being illiterate retard and now suddenly his word is a gospel?

Are you sure it was a mistake ?
Yes, TASS makes mistakes like every other news agency but they make far fewer mistakes than others.
Russian MOD did not deny that announcement.
Khabarovsk will most likely not be the last submarine of the 09851 project, so the Russians may be building additional submarines of that project under the "mask" of the 885M project. Laid down as 885M for public but constructed and delivered as 09851 project submarine. Could that be true ? Yes.

Yes it was a mistake

Tass couldn't report correctly on military matters to save their life

We saw the photos of hull section from the laying down ceremony and it's clearly Yasen

PapaDragon wrote:

Podlodka77 wrote:

PapaDragon wrote:
Ulyanovsk is Yasen-class not Khabarovsk

Can we please stop with this bullshit already?

One journalists was being illiterate retard and now suddenly his word is a gospel?

Are you sure it was a mistake ?
Yes, TASS makes mistakes like every other news agency but they make far fewer mistakes than others.
Russian MOD did not deny that announcement.
Khabarovsk will most likely not be the last submarine of the 09851 project, so the Russians may be building additional submarines of that project under the "mask" of the 885M project. Laid down as 885M for public but constructed and delivered as 09851 project submarine. Could that be true ? Yes.

Yes it was a mistake

Tass couldn't report correctly on military matters to save their life

We saw the photos of hull section from the laying down ceremony and it's clearly Yasen

Again, are you sure, because that same journalist has wrote the following; Initially, it was assumed that the name "Ulyanovsk" would receive the sixth hull of the multi-purpose submarine of project 885M "Yasen". ? And that means that journalist is familiar with the number of 885M submarines under construction.
The same journalist even states that the submarine Khabarovsk belongs to project 09851, while Ulyanovsk will be a submarine of project 09853.

https://tass.ru/armiya-i-opk/10465325

Yes, I am sure

Some journalists was being​ a fucking retard and he wrote some bullshit, end of story

Ulyanovsk is not on the list for 885 submarines in english wikipedia also..
That means nothing, of course, but as for laid down ceremony - that means nothing also...
In Severnaya Werf Retiviy was laid down and then renamed to Merkuriy..
And first corvette of the project 20386 DERZKIY was renamed do MERKURIY and then again to DERZKIY...

Hull diameters don't get changed after construction starts

I can edit wiki page, would that be enough for you to stop being thick?

Podlodka77 wrote:Ulyanovsk is not on the list for 885 submarines in english wikipedia also..
That means nothing, of course, but as for laid down ceremony - that means nothing also...

Stop being a dick, please.

SevMash guys know what they're talking about... Ulyanovsk is a Yasen-M.




Extracted from here (official VK SevMash account)

https://vk.com/doc19773599_622069287?hash=edb060cc845bc9cf64

Not that I am pretending to be a dick much, but the very same chart states 8 Oniks on board

I guess the idea is that it's 8 for every two side-by-side launchers but it's not very well illustrated. The illustration suggests 8 per launcher.

Not really, the text in Russian states that "APK niesiet 8 puskowych ustanowek kompleksa Oniks", which translates to "atomic rocket cruiser carries eight launch containers of the Onyks complex".
The only hint there, is another cloud about "wooruzeniye", "weaponry", that address 32 pcs set of missiles. So we can figure what they mean as "puskowaja ustanowka" - a tube with 4 missiles.
So don't be harsh while commenting while using the chart ...

ALAMO wrote:Not that I am pretending to be a dick  much, but the very same chart states 8 Oniks on board

8 tubes with several missiles inside

Subs don't pack one missile per tube

PapaDragon wrote:

Subs don't pack one missile per tube

Ever tried to tell that to projects 613, 644, 665, 661, 670, 675, 949 ... ?
Yeah PD, I get the joke - but admit that the chart is let's say "tabloid one", and it is the last evidence to bully Podvodnik, who might be enthusiastic beyond the radar, but still has a really good background?
Please?

Renewal of the Russian Navy from 2012 to 2021

Since 2012, the Russian Navy has included 35 warships of ten different types (with a total displacement of over 500 tons).

The total displacement of warships included in the Navy since 2012 has amounted to almost 73 thousand tons .

Since 2012, the fleet has included ships of ten projects:

1 small artillery ship pr. 21630 "Buyan" ;

5 mine defense ships pr. 12700 "Alexandrite" ;

3 small missile ships pr. 22800 "Karakurt" (designed for operations on the high seas);

9 small rocket ships pr. 21631 "Buyan-M" (capable of walking on rivers, lakes and shallow bays);

3 patrol ships pr.22160 (intended for operations in the far sea zone);

1 rocket ship pr. 11661K "Gepard" ;

6 multi-purpose corvettes of the near sea zone pr.20380/385 (ships of the 2nd rank);

3 multi-purpose frigates of the far sea zone , project 11356 (ships of the 2nd rank);

2 multi-purpose frigates of the far sea zone pr.22350 (ships of the 1st rank);

2 large landing ships pr. 11711.

10 shipyards are engaged in the construction of warships for the Russian fleet. Three are located in St. Petersburg, two in the Crimea (in Feodosia and Kerch), one each in Kaliningrad, Rybinsk, Zelenodolsk, Komsomolsk-on-Amur and the city of Otradnoye (Leningrad region).

For ten years, the Russian Navy has included 35 warships , with a total total displacement of almost 73,000 tons . By the beginning of 2022, 16 ships have been launched, 28 ships are at various stages of construction, and 6 more ships are being prepared for laying.

The dynamics of the transfer of warships by five-year plans (with a displacement of over 500 tons):

2002-2006 - 2

2007-2011 - 5

2012-2016 - 12

2017-2021 - 23

Over the past 5 years, more warships have entered the Russian Navy than in the previous 15 years (from 2002 to 2016) .

https://sdelanounas-ru.translate.goog/blogs/145363/?_x_tr_sl=auto&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en#cut

franco wrote: Renewal of the Russian Navy from 2012 to 2021

Since 2012, the Russian Navy has included 35 warships of ten different types (with a total displacement of over 500 tons).

The total displacement of warships included in the Navy since 2012 has amounted to almost 73 thousand tons .

Since 2012, the fleet has included ships of ten projects:

1 small artillery ship pr. 21630 "Buyan" ;

5 mine defense ships pr. 12700 "Alexandrite" ;

3 small missile ships pr. 22800 "Karakurt" (designed for operations on the high seas);

9 small rocket ships pr. 21631 "Buyan-M" (capable of walking on rivers, lakes and shallow bays);

3 patrol ships pr.22160 (intended for operations in the far sea zone);

1 rocket ship pr. 11661K "Gepard" ;

6 multi-purpose corvettes of the near sea zone pr.20380/385 (ships of the 2nd rank);

3 multi-purpose frigates of the far sea zone , project 11356 (ships of the 2nd rank);

2 multi-purpose frigates of the far sea zone pr.22350 (ships of the 1st rank);

2 large landing ships pr. 11711.

10 shipyards are engaged in the construction of warships for the Russian fleet. Three are located in St. Petersburg, two in the Crimea (in Feodosia and Kerch), one each in Kaliningrad, Rybinsk, Zelenodolsk, Komsomolsk-on-Amur and the city of Otradnoye (Leningrad region).

For ten years, the Russian Navy has included 35 warships , with a total total displacement of almost 73,000 tons . By the beginning of 2022, 16 ships have been launched, 28 ships are at various stages of construction, and 6 more ships are being prepared for laying.

The dynamics of the transfer of warships by five-year plans (with a displacement of over 500 tons):

2002-2006 - 2

2007-2011 - 5

2012-2016 - 12

2017-2021 - 23

Over the past 5 years, more warships have entered the Russian Navy than in the previous 15 years (from 2002 to 2016) .

https://sdelanounas-ru.translate.goog/blogs/145363/?_x_tr_sl=auto&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en#cut

73,000 tons is less full displacement than two strategic submarines of project 955/955A and two multi-purpose 855/855A projects. This means that one Sevmash is more efficient than Severnaya Werf, Yantar, Amur shipyard, More, Zaliv, Zelenodolsk, Admirality shipyard, etc. And it is important to emphasize that only the corvettes of the project 20380/20385, as well as the frigates of the project 22350 are multi-purpose ships - anti-submarine defense, quality air defense system, anti-ship missile systems, helicopter.
My opinion, nothing else; it is necessary to include in the "game" Baltic and Zvezda shipyard one day.

And it is less than one giant gas transport ship too, but the smaller ships they are making are vastly more valuable to the Russian Navy than one or two really big ships.

The small ships have lots of issues to work out but because their new ships are modular, the future bigger ships are made of the same pieces, though with more pieces of course.

The problems of wiring in and integrating a UKSK launcher in a corvette has a lot of problems because the launcher is brand new and previously unused, but now they have fitted them and used them in Corvettes and Frigates and soon they will have an enlarged frigate in the water too... these are all normal and necessary development steps needed to be taken to get this right without unpleasant surprises.

Obviously as they start to build bigger and bigger ships the construction rate measured in displacement tons is going to increase massively.

The last ten years with 73K tons of ships.... well in the next ten years there are going to be two 40K ton helicopter carriers, in addition to everything else they are going to be making, so we can expect that to be a record increase in tonnage as well.

But these gas transporters could carry a lot of Kaliber missiles.

The important thing is that sometimes you are wrong and arguing the point when there is confirmation one way or the other is a little silly.

(Should say I am not really following this disagreement very carefully and could not say for sure who is wrong, but a document from the website of people who should know is pretty good evidence... drawings of the UKSK system normally show it being two large tubes each with four missile tubes in each tube, suggesting that a single UKSK launcher is actually two large tubes with four missile tubes in each tube for a total of 8 missiles per UKSK launcher... like this:



So 8 of those big tubes with four missiles each would equate to 8 launchers with 32 missiles I suppose... )

Everyone can be wrong but when we make it an argument instead of a discussion it gets harder to admit when we are mistaken.

For instance I had lots of discussions in the past with a member called Ironsightsniper, who hasn't visited in a while... Once he heard about how clever the Iskander is... with its manouvering and sophisticated systems for evading interception and it flew in for the kill he suggested a ship based version.

I said the idea was silly mainly because the US would go apeshit over a naval missile that would clearly violate the INF treaty if it as every use in a land based version and as there are land based versions of Iskander there would be no way they would believe the land based models are limited to 500km range when the sea based ones could have much longer ranges of 2-3 thousand kms each with extra launch stages for instances.

Of course two things have changed... the INF treaty has gone, which the Americans were already violating with the AEGIS Ashore system which is fully compatible with Tomahawk cruise missiles as was shown just over two weeks after the end of the INF treaty when they did such a test launch, and of course the introduction of working scramjet engines is an enormous thing too because the use of scramjet motors means intermediate range ballistic rocket speeds become attainable using vastly more efficient jet engines.

A two stage Iskander... well we know what that would be like because there is one in service... it is called Kinzhal and the first stage lifts the missle to a height of 18km or so and a flight speed of mach 2.4 or thereabouts and a distance of up to 750km from the takeoff location... and when released the final stage has a flight range of about 2,000km at about mach 9 or so, which gives it a total range of almost 3,000km.

A more conventional solid rocket booster could lift just the missile into the air and accelerate it to say 25km altitude and perhaps mach 3 flight speed and release the Kinzhal missile itself at perhaps 70-80km from the launching ship for a range of perhaps 2,000km which would be just fine... but it would be rather big and heavy... it would likely be rather more efficient to replace the 4 ton Iskander missile with a 4 ton scramjet powered missile because all that extra fuel could be used over a much longer period to climb higher and faster.

It is a bit like a comparison between a 1 litre tin of petrol and the equivalent weight of high explosive... that size and weight of explosive would seriously damage a room but 1 litre of petrol could burn down an entire forest.

GarryB wrote:And it is less than one giant gas transport ship too, but the smaller ships they are making are vastly more valuable to the Russian Navy than one or two really big ships.

The small ships have lots of issues to work out but because their new ships are modular, the future bigger ships are made of the same pieces, though with more pieces of course.

The problems of wiring in and integrating a UKSK launcher in a corvette has a lot of problems because the launcher is brand new and previously unused, but now they have fitted them and used them in Corvettes and Frigates and soon they will have an enlarged frigate in the water too... these are all normal and necessary development steps needed to be taken to get this right without unpleasant surprises.

Obviously as they start to build bigger and bigger ships the construction rate measured in displacement tons is going to increase massively.

The last ten years with 73K tons of ships.... well in the next ten years there are going to be two 40K ton helicopter carriers, in addition to everything else they are going to be making, so we can expect that to be a record increase in tonnage as well.

In some ways I agree with you and in some ways I don't. Garry, Sevmash has delivered 4 submarines in the last two years with a total displacement of 73,000 tons ..
Only nuclear submarines handed over to the RN just for 2020 and 2021;
* 2020; K-549 Knyaz Vladimir (955A),
* 2021; K-552 Knyaz Oleg (955A), K-561 Kazan (885M), K-573 Novosibirsk of the project 885M.
That’s 48,000 tons of full displacement for two 955A Borey-A submarines. As for the 855M Yasen-M submarine, they are about 9 meters shorter than the 855 Yasen project, so I think their displacement is lower. Let it be that each submarine of the 885M project has about 12,500 tons of full displacement (compared to 13,800 at K-560 Severodvinsk), which is 25,000 tons for two submarines.
Two Borei-A with 48 000 tons and two Yasen-M with 25 000 tons = 73 000 tons . JUST in twoo years.  

And if we count the non-nuclear submarines handed over to the Russian fleet from 2014 to 2021, the situation is even worse for surface warships.
From 2014 to 2021, 9 submarines of the 636.3 project were handed over to the Russian fleet, and each of these submarines has a full displacement of 3950 tons or 9 x 3950 = 35550 tons.
That difference will increase even more when Sevmash hands over additional 955A, 885M and 09851 submarines in the next few years. And there is the K-329 Belgorod, the only 09852 submarine- 30 000 tons monster. Of course, the Admirality shipyard will further widen the gap with the construction of Project 636.3 submarines and (hopefully) an increasing number of Project 677 submarines.
And who is the most effective ? Sevmash and Admirality shipyard, but the planners of the Russian Ministry of Defense also have an influence on that. Russian surface warships have no chance in a duel with a submarine component - at least not in the foreseeable future.

But... but... subs are easier to build. They´re just some steel tubes with some stuff inside!

In some ways I agree with you and in some ways I don't. Garry, Sevmash has delivered 4 submarines in the last two years with a total displacement of 73,000 tons

That was what I was saying about the heavier ship types... when the two new helicopter carriers are ready they will likely be put into the water in the same year so that will be two ships at 80K tons probably within one year.

In terms of a civilian ship they might make a few very very heavy ships or enormous numbers of smaller lighter ones... each or either might be necessary, which making tonnage delivered rather less useful information without the number of ships delivered and their type.

The fact is that the number of ships being made is increasing and the ships are getting bigger so that should further increase the tonnage production figures rather rapidly, but the important thing is the standardisation, and careful planning means they have a reduced number of ship types that they can serial produce faster than having each ship designed for a fleet... and of course now they can start to focus on heavier ships too... plus subs are being built in addition to ships so that is even better.

They never stopped working on subs and subs offer a mature and capable arm of the fleet that can act as a deterrent to enemy forces.

In comparison the Cold War left them with probably more surface ships than they could afford or needed at the time, but now that they have turned their economy around and have products to export, a surface fleet will be useful to ensure the sea lanes of communication remain open to Russian vessels... not to invade or attack anyone, but to make sure no one can blockade your products or your potential partners to bully them in to not trading with you... the sort of thing the west loves to do. Subs are not so useful for that, but they certainly have their role of protecting the SSBNs and Russian coastal waters and Russian surface fleets.

Zaliv shipyard, Kerch Crimea
Video is from yesterday (30 January 2022)
Shows:
- Pr. 22160 Sergey Kotov (which is under sea trials)
- Cable layer Volga still being fitted out
- Pr. 22800 Askold already launched
- Pr. 22800 Amur still under construction

Lot of space around the yard...

Pella shipyard, a couple of days ago:
Ilmen, Andromeda, Skorpion, Burya and one of the Foedosiya built hulls of pr.22800 Karakurt class.

Amur Shipyard:
Results of the year and plans for future

Let us turn to the results of the past year and the plans of the Amur Shipbuilding Plant.
Orders

Three corvettes from the new contract (2020, contract for 6 corvettes) were laid down: Grozny, Bravy and Buiny are already on the stocks. At the same time, the corvette "Buyny" is the ship of the next project - 20385 (TsKB Almaz). The Ministry of Defense postponed the delivery of the Rizkiy corvette to 2022: contractors-suppliers - the Zaslon company - delayed the delivery of important equipment.

The delivery plans for the next year, 2022, include two ferries for the Vanino-Kholmsk line and the Rezkiy corvette for the Ministry of Defense, which is scheduled to be commissioned by Navy Day. In 2024, it is planned to hand over order 2105 (corvette "Grozny"), in the same year the first (possibly second) small rocket ship should be handed over...

Full article in Russian: https://www.korabel.ru/news/comments/itogi_goda_korabelov_amurskiy_sudostroitelnyy_zavod.html

Use online translator

Update of the Russian Navy from 2012 to 2021 (Part 1 - Surface Ships)
https://sdelanounas-ru.translate.goog/blogs/145363/?_x_tr_sl=auto&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en
Russian Navy Update from 2012 to 2021 (Part 2 - Submarine Force)
https://sdelanounas-ru.translate.goog/blogs/145441/?_x_tr_sl=auto&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en
Update of the Russian Navy from 2012 to 2021 (part 3 - Deep Modernization)
https://sdelanounas-ru.translate.goog/blogs/?id=69&_x_tr_sl=auto&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en