Russia Defence Forum

Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.

Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


+80
KiloGolf
eehnie
nemrod
Tolstoy
Kimppis
Ned86
SeigSoloyvov
AK-Rex
Isos
OminousSpudd
ult
Backinblack
jhelb
nastle77
artjomh
nobunaga
Maximmmm
PapaDragon
Ranxerox71
Svyatoslavich
JohninMK
Cucumber Khan
chicken
Dima
mack8
Rmf
Mr.Comrade
RedJasmin
VladimirSahin
franco
GunshipDemocracy
higurashihougi
Book.
max steel
Big_Gazza
Naval Fan
Zivo
TheSentinel
Tyloe
flamming_python
Honesroc
Kyo
GarryB
wilhelm
medo
sepheronx
kvs
calripson
Werewolf
type055
redgiacomo
AlfaT8
Cyberspec
TheArmenian
Mike E
magnumcromagnon
Vann7
George1
TR1
T055
runaway
fragmachine
coolieno99
Hannibal Barca
collegeboy16
eridan
Asf
Firebird
zg18
gaurav
Morpheus Eberhardt
KomissarBojanchev
RTN
xeno
Vympel
Flyingdutchman
Stealthflanker
navyfield
Viktor
Austin
84 posters

    Russian Navy: Status & News #2

    Big_Gazza
    Big_Gazza


    Posts : 4883
    Points : 4873
    Join date : 2014-08-25
    Location : Melbourne, Australia

    Russian Navy: Status & News #2 - Page 35 Empty Re: Russian Navy: Status & News #2

    Post  Big_Gazza Thu May 05, 2016 7:16 am

    PapaDragon wrote:
    Austin wrote:With 6 Gorshkov coming only by 2025 which is long time to build just 6 ship but I think its mainly due to engine issues , What other class are they building and in what number to over come the shortfall and delays with Gorshkov.

    Even the 1135.6 class ships are affected by Engine issue so no more ship of that class either , so what else is there on table ?

    Absolutely nothing whatsoever.

    Only things getting done on time are Buyan-M and maybe 22800 (very similar ship)

    Corvettes are a joke. Aircraft carriers are built in less time than these overpriced and, by now obsolete fiascoes.

    Frigates that will be built by 2025 will barely be enough to replace older ships that will be retired. Yasen-M class nuclear attack subs are built at the same pace or faster right now than Gorshkov frigates. Frigate is built at the same speed as infinitely more complicated and much larger nuclear submarine. And corvettes even slower. Imagine that...

    As for anything bigger forget about it. They are expanding some shipyards to supposedly build destroyers and carriers but if they have half the brain they will use those new facilities to build more Gorshkov frigates. Building anything bigger before they have at least 12 new frigates in service and just as many under construction or on order would be epic idiocy. But as long as they stick to standard stupidity of one shipyard=one model I don't see anything changing for the better.

    Only exception would be new landing ship, they really do need those.    

    These modern corvettes pack a lot of punch into a small displacement. Buyan-M have <1000T displacement yet have anti-ship firepower equal to a Soviet-era Sovremmeny (8000T), and can engage land targets. A great little ship for littoral defense.

    The first units of Gorshkov class are slow as they are a quantum leap ahead of anything Russia has built before, and complex tech takes time to fully integrate and work out the bugs. Ukropistani trouble-making and engine supply problems will cause grief in the short-medium term, but developing a domestic naval engine capability is an essential component of an independent MIC, and its well overdue.
    GunshipDemocracy
    GunshipDemocracy


    Posts : 6165
    Points : 6185
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    Russian Navy: Status & News #2 - Page 35 Empty Re: Russian Navy: Status & News #2

    Post  GunshipDemocracy Thu May 05, 2016 7:24 am

    Big_Gazza wrote:
    Austin wrote:With 6 Gorshkov coming only by 2025 which is long time to build just 6 ship but I think its mainly due to engine issues , What other class are they building and in what number to over come the shortfall and delays with Gorshkov.

    Even the 1135.6 class ships are affected by Engine issue so no more ship of that class either , so what else is there on table ?

    Concentrate on large numbers of small patrol boats, missile corvettes, frigates to rebuild the fleet from the bottom up?  These kinds of ships operating under the cover of land-based aviation will give Russia very capable area-denial capabilities against anything but a full CBG, especially if the small boats can carry kalibres and hypersonic Zircons.

    I want to see confirmation that a Zircon can be launched from a standard 8-tube UKSK or 3C-14 VLS, and that all ships with these silos are zircon-capable.  Hopefully its not just the refurbished Kirov class (and Slava?) that can carry them.

    I did not hear thet Slave will be refurbished. I do not think Zircon will requires many changes ot UKSK if any. As for frigates I believe this is realistic decision. The only thing worrying me is poor AA defences of 22800 and no ASW. I mean not to make then ASW chasers but for example Paket for torpedo defences...and navalized Pantsir to fend off air assault. With ranges 3000miles they not necessarily operate 300km from shore and not always under protection of external ASW/AAD shield.
    PapaDragon
    PapaDragon


    Posts : 13463
    Points : 13503
    Join date : 2015-04-26
    Location : Fort Evil, Serbia

    Russian Navy: Status & News #2 - Page 35 Empty Re: Russian Navy: Status & News #2

    Post  PapaDragon Thu May 05, 2016 8:25 am

    Big_Gazza wrote:......................

    These modern corvettes pack a lot of punch into a small displacement.  Buyan-M have <1000T displacement yet have anti-ship firepower equal to a Soviet-era Sovremmeny (8000T), and can engage land targets.  A great little ship for littoral defense.......

    Nobody is disputing quality of Buyan-Ms. They are great ships but like you said they are for littoral defense. If there is one thing that Russian Navy has perfected it is littoral defense, no argument there. We are talking about further out, that is where the problem is.

    Also, can we please stop calling Buyans and 22800s corvettes because they are not corvettes, they are missile boats.

    Big_Gazza wrote:...........
    The first units of Gorshkov class are slow as they are a quantum leap ahead of anything Russia has built before, and complex tech takes time to fully integrate and work out the bugs.  Ukropistani trouble-making and engine supply problems will cause grief in the short-medium term, but developing a domestic naval engine capability is an essential component of an independent MIC, and its well overdue.

    Kirov and Slava-class were also quantum leap back in a day but they were never built in sufficient numbers. This is where the problem is. Gorshkov-class is excellent and much needed ship but building them in just one shipyard will mean that it will end up as Slava-class before it. Always is high demand and always in short supply and by the time they do (or even if) they build enough of them they will already be obsolete.

    They have to start building these ships in more than one shipyard. Take US Navy for example. People think that they control the oceans because they have aircraft carriers. Wrong.
    It's because they have huge number of destroyers that they kept continuously building and upgrading for decades at several different shipyards. And they still build them.



    GunshipDemocracy wrote:...................
    I did not hear thet Slave will be refurbished. I do not think Zircon will requires many changes ot UKSK if any. As for frigates I believe  this is realistic decision. The only thing worrying me is poor AA defences of 22800 and no ASW. I mean not to make then ASW chasers but for example Paket for torpedo defences...and navalized Pantsir to fend off air assault.  With ranges 3000miles they not necessarily operate 300km from shore and not always under protection of external ASW/AAD shield.

    Zircon will be fully compatible with UKSK launcher (one of design requirements) and any ship equipped with UKSK will be able to carry Zircons (not that they will, of course, overkill much).

    If they make effort to develop horizontal UKSK launcher then upgrading Slava and other classes with similar setup will be very easy. And it would turn them into real beasts.
    GarryB
    GarryB


    Posts : 40489
    Points : 40989
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Russian Navy: Status & News #2 - Page 35 Empty Re: Russian Navy: Status & News #2

    Post  GarryB Thu May 05, 2016 9:00 am

    UKSK is a universal missile launcher for anti ship, anti sub, and land attack missiles.

    Why would the new replacement anti ship missile not be compatible with the new standard launcher for the russian navy?

    Why would you want your corvettes be able to fire 2,500km range land attack cruise missiles, but not your new hypersonic anti ship missile?

    The corvettes wont have been able to see the land targets before they launched missiles to attack them... which suggests they accept target data from other platforms and other source... which suggests anti sub and long range surface to air missiles could also be used by these ships to extend the reach of the Russian Navy...

    Those complaining that they have no blue water capability yet... gotta walk before you fly.

    There is no point in building sea going frigates if there are no corvettes to protect the home waters. No point in carriers and cruisers if there are no destroyers and frigates and corvettes to do the boring stuff.

    There is no rush for new cruisers and new carriers yet... they would not have the infrastructure to support their use.

    Also, can we please stop calling Buyans and 22800s corvettes because they are not corvettes, they are missile boats.

    It makes more sense to call them corvettes because that indicates their size as being below that of a Frigate. A missile boat could be anything... you could call a Kirov a missile boat.

    As shown in the photo above they have a gun at the front and the main missile armament is on the rear deck in containers that are not integral to the ship so it is hard to call them missile ships any more than you could call a massive container ship with container loaded Kalibr missiles is a missile boat...
    PapaDragon
    PapaDragon


    Posts : 13463
    Points : 13503
    Join date : 2015-04-26
    Location : Fort Evil, Serbia

    Russian Navy: Status & News #2 - Page 35 Empty Re: Russian Navy: Status & News #2

    Post  PapaDragon Thu May 05, 2016 1:46 pm

    GarryB wrote:....................

    Those complaining that they have no blue water capability yet... gotta walk before you fly.

    There is no point in building sea going frigates if there are no corvettes to protect the home waters. No point in carriers and cruisers if there are no destroyers and frigates and corvettes to do the boring stuff.

    ...................

    But they already know how to walk and very well. Kilo-subs, Buyans, 2280, etc.... It's not the tech that is the problem it is the speed of construction.

    I don't know what is stopping them from focusing on couple of good platforms and mass producing them in several shipyards simultaneously. Once the produce one platform in numbers focus on the next big thing in the same way.


    Also, do you guys think that we will see horizontal UKSK launcher developed for RU Navy? It would greatly aid upgrading of Soviet ships.
    GunshipDemocracy
    GunshipDemocracy


    Posts : 6165
    Points : 6185
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    Russian Navy: Status & News #2 - Page 35 Empty Re: Russian Navy: Status & News #2

    Post  GunshipDemocracy Thu May 05, 2016 6:37 pm

    PapaDragon wrote: I don't know what is stopping them from focusing on couple of good platforms and mass producing them in several shipyards simultaneously. Once the produce one platform in numbers focus on the next big thing in the same way.

    Well I am also wondering what exactly was influencing decisions to make so many types/subtypes of small ships instead of mass producing one model. maybe pace of external situation? (US aggression against  Ukraine, Syria/Turkey)?

    PapaDragon wrote:
    Also, do you guys think that we will see horizontal UKSK launcher developed for RU Navy? It would greatly aid upgrading of Soviet ships.

    I hope they do. All in all in 949 subs there is replacement one P-700 Granit for 3 Calibrs...Maybe with ration 2 Kalibrs for one P-500 make nicey  upgrade. Hopefully with all OSA replaced by Pantsirs but only my fantasizing Smile


    PapaDragon wrote: Nobody is disputing quality of Buyan-Ms. They are great ships but like you said they are for littoral defense. If there is one thing that Russian Navy has perfected it is littoral defense, no argument there. We are talking about further out, that is where the problem is.

    Also, can we please stop calling Buyans and 22800s corvettes because they are not corvettes, they are missile boats.

    True but PGG 618 TUOJIANG or Visby prove that you can have corvette with 800t not only missile boat.
    GunshipDemocracy
    GunshipDemocracy


    Posts : 6165
    Points : 6185
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    Russian Navy: Status & News #2 - Page 35 Empty Re: Russian Navy: Status & News #2

    Post  GunshipDemocracy Thu May 05, 2016 7:13 pm

    GarryB wrote:

    Also, can we please stop calling Buyans and 22800s corvettes because they are not corvettes, they are missile boats.

    It makes more sense to call them corvettes because that indicates their size as being below that of a Frigate. A missile boat could be anything... you could call a Kirov a missile boat.

    As shown in the photo above they have a gun at the front and the main missile armament is on the rear deck in containers that are not integral to the ship so it is hard to call them missile ships any more than you could call a massive container ship with container loaded Kalibr missiles is a missile boat...


    not exactly anything...In Russian 22800 are called MRK (: Малый ракетный корабль - small missile ship)

    Their definition according to wiki rank 3 ships:

    Small missile ship (MRK) — a combat surface ship with a displacement of 650-1050 tons, with diesel or diesel-gas turbine main propulsion plant, missile-artillery armament designed to destroy any combat ships and transport ships of the enemy, reconnaissance and patrol, provide security and cover for convoys and amphibious landings in the coastal regions and near sea zone.

    So guess Kirov size won´t fit Razz
    franco
    franco


    Posts : 7043
    Points : 7069
    Join date : 2010-08-17

    Russian Navy: Status & News #2 - Page 35 Empty Re: Russian Navy: Status & News #2

    Post  franco Fri May 06, 2016 9:31 pm

    Americans say Russian Navy operating at 44% strength of the American Fleet

    http://mil.today/2016/Navy5/
    George1
    George1


    Posts : 18510
    Points : 19013
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    Russian Navy: Status & News #2 - Page 35 Empty Re: Russian Navy: Status & News #2

    Post  George1 Fri May 06, 2016 10:12 pm

    franco wrote:Americans say Russian Navy operating at 44% strength of the American Fleet

    http://mil.today/2016/Navy5/

    i thought it was smaller percentage
    kvs
    kvs


    Posts : 15840
    Points : 15975
    Join date : 2014-09-10
    Location : Turdope's Kanada

    Russian Navy: Status & News #2 - Page 35 Empty Re: Russian Navy: Status & News #2

    Post  kvs Fri May 06, 2016 11:41 pm

    franco wrote:Americans say Russian Navy operating at 44% strength of the American Fleet

    http://mil.today/2016/Navy5/

    This is impressive since Russia is not operating the world's biggest imperial navy of all time. Considering that Russia's
    navy is in the middle of a massive upgrade, one begins to see why Washington is on the war path. By 2030 the
    world will be a very different place if Russia keeps developing.
    Kimppis
    Kimppis


    Posts : 617
    Points : 617
    Join date : 2014-12-23

    Russian Navy: Status & News #2 - Page 35 Empty Re: Russian Navy: Status & News #2

    Post  Kimppis Sat May 07, 2016 1:18 am

    With only 6 Gorshkovs (is that even confirmed?) by 2025... Doesn't sound like a massive upgrade to me. cry The Chinese Navy on the other hand... (Luckily, that is a good thing for Russia, because they are pretty much tying up most of the US Navy already, let alone in 2030.)  

    Here's the actual comparison (this seems to be from 2012, but whatever): http://rusnavy.com/nowadays/structure/techreadiness2012/

    And George, I also feel that 44% is way too high. It seems that they are giving quite a bit of weight to littoral ships, which the US doesn't really have. I guess that's fair enough, but how many of those small ships are actually operational atm in the Russian Navy or even viable past 2020? Are most of them really 1/3 "as capable" as destroyers? Especially the older ones, not to mention that lightly armed patrol boats might also be included. 25% sounds closer to me, and even that only after most of the upgrades are complete. But IMO, that woudn't actually be too bad.


    Last edited by Kimppis on Sat May 07, 2016 3:55 am; edited 1 time in total
    avatar
    Guest
    Guest


    Russian Navy: Status & News #2 - Page 35 Empty Re: Russian Navy: Status & News #2

    Post  Guest Sat May 07, 2016 1:31 am

    franco wrote:Americans say Russian Navy operating at 44% strength of the American Fleet

    http://mil.today/2016/Navy5/

    44% is very, very optimistic on Russian side as just various types of carriers in US navy have probably more gross tonnage than whole Russian fleet both surface and submarines combined.
    GarryB
    GarryB


    Posts : 40489
    Points : 40989
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Russian Navy: Status & News #2 - Page 35 Empty Re: Russian Navy: Status & News #2

    Post  GarryB Sat May 07, 2016 8:00 am

    But they already know how to walk and very well. Kilo-subs, Buyans, 2280, etc.... It's not the tech that is the problem it is the speed of construction.

    There is no problem with speed of construction... the problem is sourcing major components like engines.

    The facts are that the new ships and subs they will be building are modular... it doesn't matter what type of ship they are building... the fact that they are learning to produce modular designs means that when components are available production speed should be fine.

    Of course there is no point in being able to produce thousands of ships a year... they don't need that many and by next year the shipyards would be out of business... after spending all that money on domestic engine production all of a sudden they wont need any... now that is dumb.

    I don't know what is stopping them from focusing on couple of good platforms and mass producing them in several shipyards simultaneously. Once the produce one platform in numbers focus on the next big thing in the same way.

    The systems are all new and untested... they want fully multirole vessels, but sometimes the balance of armament is hard to get right... for many cases when not at war a simple patrol vessel with a few weapons with lots of ammo and lots of food and water and fuel supplies is best... other times a wider range of weapons is more important... can you tell them what they need?

    You can of course... but can you guarantee you will be right?

    Also, do you guys think that we will see horizontal UKSK launcher developed for RU Navy? It would greatly aid upgrading of Soviet ships.

    Might be useful on the Slava class, but most of the rest would be better retired and replaced.

    Well I am also wondering what exactly was influencing decisions to make so many types/subtypes of small ships instead of mass producing one model. maybe pace of external situation? (US aggression against Ukraine, Syria/Turkey)?

    they have four fleets that operate in very different conditions with very different potential opponents... I doubt one design would suffice.

    So guess Kirov size won´t fit

    the description of a small missile boat is Soviet talk... they had small missile boats and small torpedo boats... collectively called corvettes. Now they just have small missile boats... also corvettes.

    Americans say Russian Navy operating at 44% strength of the American Fleet

    Garry says 80% of such statistics are bullshit and are often made up on the spot. The remaining 40% of statistics rarely ever add up, but few people think about it and just take it at face value.

    kvs
    kvs


    Posts : 15840
    Points : 15975
    Join date : 2014-09-10
    Location : Turdope's Kanada

    Russian Navy: Status & News #2 - Page 35 Empty Re: Russian Navy: Status & News #2

    Post  kvs Sun May 08, 2016 12:37 am

    Kimppis wrote:With only 6 Gorshkovs (is that even confirmed?) by 2025... Doesn't sound like a massive upgrade to me. cry The Chinese Navy on the other hand... (Luckily, that is a good thing for Russia, because they are pretty much tying up most of the US Navy already, let alone in 2030.)  

    Here's the actual comparison (this seems to be from 2012, but whatever): http://rusnavy.com/nowadays/structure/techreadiness2012/

    And George, I also feel that 44% is way too high. It seems that they are giving quite a bit of weight to littoral ships, which the US doesn't really have. I guess that's fair enough, but how many of those small ships are actually operational atm in the Russian Navy or even viable past 2020? Are most of them really 1/3 "as capable" as destroyers? Especially the older ones, not to mention that lightly armed patrol boats might also be included. 25% sounds closer to me, and even that only after most of the upgrades are complete. But IMO, that woudn't actually be too bad.

    Those tiny useless ships in the Caspian sure shocked a few deciders in the west when they launched salvos of cruise missiles at
    targets in Syria a few months ago. It seems that most in this thread are obsessed with obsolete category sorting and not the
    actual firepower of new Russian ships. In this case the 44% is not BS but the real deal. Things have changed. Keep on counting
    the number of Gorshkovs as if that is all that matters.
    sepheronx
    sepheronx


    Posts : 8823
    Points : 9083
    Join date : 2009-08-05
    Age : 35
    Location : Canada

    Russian Navy: Status & News #2 - Page 35 Empty Re: Russian Navy: Status & News #2

    Post  sepheronx Sun May 08, 2016 12:44 am

    KVS, Kimmpis has been trolling or is either completely delusional, but he seems to forget how effective the ships have been. These small ships pack such a punch that yes, size matter doesnt really matter anymore.
    OminousSpudd
    OminousSpudd


    Posts : 942
    Points : 947
    Join date : 2015-01-02
    Location : New Zealand

    Russian Navy: Status & News #2 - Page 35 Empty Re: Russian Navy: Status & News #2

    Post  OminousSpudd Sun May 08, 2016 3:30 am

    GarryB wrote:
    Garry says 80% of such statistics are bullshit and are often made up on the spot. The remaining 40% of statistics rarely ever add up, but few people think about it and just take it at face value.
    Not sure if intentional. Suspect
    TheArmenian
    TheArmenian


    Posts : 1880
    Points : 2025
    Join date : 2011-09-14

    Russian Navy: Status & News #2 - Page 35 Empty Re: Russian Navy: Status & News #2

    Post  TheArmenian Sun May 08, 2016 6:02 am

    New ships:

    4th ship of project 22160 has been laid down.
    name is Sergey Kotov
    http://www.tatar-inform.ru/news/2016/05/08/502882/


    New coast guard ship Project 22460 launched.
    Name is Provorny
    http://sdelanounas.ru/blogs/77391/


    Last edited by TheArmenian on Sun May 08, 2016 7:33 am; edited 1 time in total
    Kimppis
    Kimppis


    Posts : 617
    Points : 617
    Join date : 2014-12-23

    Russian Navy: Status & News #2 - Page 35 Empty Re: Russian Navy: Status & News #2

    Post  Kimppis Sun May 08, 2016 6:18 am

    Some of the posters on this forum... Overreacting much? HOW THE HELL AM I TROLLING! Even if my post my was a bit misleading, now that I think about it.

    I did not intend to downplay the effectiveness of those ships and I even said the following: "It seems that they are giving quite a bit of weight to littoral ships, which the US doesn't really have. I guess that's fair enough..." And when I mentioned their viability, I wasn't actually talking about Buyan-Ms and other newer classes, but about the older ones, or even patrol boats that are potentially included in those statistics.

    Really, are 3 Buyan-Ms (as an example) really overall as capable as a single US Navy destroyer? Well, probably not. Just pointing that out. 24 missiles, with comparatively weak air defences vs. 96 VLS cells.

    But of course, then you can ask is that really the whole story? Certainly not, I'm not trying to say anything on the contrary. There are many other things to consider. Buyan-Ms are mainly supposed to operate in the littorals, within range of friendly shore-based defences, airfract, etc. and they should also be quite small and stealthly targets. I'm aware of that.

    It's just that the comparison seems to directly compare the Russian and US Navy, and that's why it's, IMO, pretty misleading to say that in a 1:1 Navy vs. Navy confrontation, the Russian Navy is around 40% as capable as the US Navy. And again, as I think I actually pointed out, I'm not saying that those kind of comparisons are necessarily all that relevant.

    Not to mention that Militarov and George actually said pretty much the the same thing... Neutral

    And I didn't say that Gorshkovs are all that matter, but the situation is not optimal. Of course Grigorovich-class is also a thing. Even 6 Gorshkovs by 2025 might be OK, if the building speed somehow considerably improves past 2025... Like 1 Gorshkov commissioned per year on average after that or something. They are very capable and they can keep ordering them for decades to come. But if they are really only getting 6 of them by 2025, when are they going to start building new destroyers? Of course they can, and they will be building both at the same time, but... well. dunno
    GarryB
    GarryB


    Posts : 40489
    Points : 40989
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Russian Navy: Status & News #2 - Page 35 Empty Re: Russian Navy: Status & News #2

    Post  GarryB Sun May 08, 2016 6:43 am

    Not sure if intentional.

    142% intentional.

    Really, are 3 Buyan-Ms (as an example) really overall as capable as a single US Navy destroyer? Well, probably not. Just pointing that out. 24 missiles, with comparatively weak air defences vs. 96 VLS cells.

    In what role?

    As patrol vessels that can look after themselves without a carrier group to support them I would say 3 Buyans would be rather more capable with the C4IR system they use... having 96 tubes for anti ship and surface to air missiles does not make a ship more capable than three ships with less missiles. Three separate ships with their own radar and fire control systems can engage more targets than one ship with one set of radar and fire control systems and with C4IR where they share data and information they can coordinate their defence as well as their attack.

    I would suggest 24 supersonic Onyx missiles would be rather more effective than 96 Harpoons... but then how often would these vessels carry all Onyx missiles or indeed all Harpoons?

    For simple patrol duties... intercepting smugglers/drug dealers/ illegal fishing boats etc then three corvettes will be vastly more useful than any one ship... even a Kirov class.

    For war they are nodes in a network so while each node is no super ship, together they represent a collective that is rather powerful and becoming more so as larger vessels are added to the mix.

    BTW If Russian corvettes are taking on US destroyers then it really wont matter who wins on the water...

    Building the Russian Navy to take on the US is a fucken waste of time and money and even if you achieve it... can it also take on all of NATO as well?

    Who could afford such a Navy?

    Why would they waste that money... bragging rights on the internet about having the most powerful navy don't form much compensation when your treasury is empty from over spending... made worse because all these new ships sitting at the pier don't have enough sailors to operate them...
    Kimppis
    Kimppis


    Posts : 617
    Points : 617
    Join date : 2014-12-23

    Russian Navy: Status & News #2 - Page 35 Empty Re: Russian Navy: Status & News #2

    Post  Kimppis Sun May 08, 2016 7:21 am

    Agreed. What I meant was indeed simply on paper, 1 vs 1 (or well, in that case maybe 1 vs 3). Which is kind of a pointless comparison, but so is that on paper comparison between the Russian and US Navies. (And btw, why are they weighting it 1 vs 3, why not 1 vs 5 or 1 vs 8? Well, whatever.)

    I've really been wondering does the "general public", or well, your average Youtube/National Interest/etc. commentator actually understand that wars are not fought in a "vacuum"? You know, in some kind of "simulated" environment. Many of those US military fans think the the US military is not limited by geography, by logistics and that asymmetrical capabilities don't exist. That for instance in order to counter an aircraft close to your own shore, you need an aircraft carrier yourself. That China needs supercarriers to counter the US Navy in the first island chain. That the Russian military is trying or that it even needs to counter the whole of Nato 1:1 on paper? Yeah, because those Portuguese and Belgian troops are going to be so useful in the east, or for that matter, anywhere else... OK, that's a little off-topic, but the internet is full of those kind of "arguments".
    GunshipDemocracy
    GunshipDemocracy


    Posts : 6165
    Points : 6185
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    Russian Navy: Status & News #2 - Page 35 Empty Re: Russian Navy: Status & News #2

    Post  GunshipDemocracy Sun May 08, 2016 8:05 am

    GarryB wrote:
    Also, do you guys think that we will see horizontal UKSK launcher developed for RU Navy? It would greatly aid upgrading of Soviet ships.

    Might be useful on the Slava class, but most of the rest would be better retired and replaced.


    Then why not to replace 16xP-500 with say 48/64xKh-35 in upgraded version. Guess saturation attack against any naval ship group would be success.


    GarryB wrote:
    Well I am also wondering what exactly was influencing decisions to make so many types/subtypes of small ships instead of mass producing one model. maybe pace of external situation? (US aggression against  Ukraine, Syria/Turkey)?

    they have four fleets that operate in very different conditions with very different potential opponents... I doubt one design would suffice.



    One modular? like 22160?



    GarryB wrote:
    So guess Kirov size won´t fit

    the description of a small missile boat is Soviet talk... they had small missile boats and small torpedo boats... collectively called corvettes. Now they just have small missile boats... also corvettes.


    This is maybe Soviet talk but still AFAIK offically used in Russian Navy.
    Official class is rocket/artillery ship subclass: small missile ship for 22800 Razz


    Russian Navy: Status & News #2 - Page 35 1451047337_mrk-22800-2
    Tolstoy
    Tolstoy


    Posts : 239
    Points : 233
    Join date : 2015-07-12

    Russian Navy: Status & News #2 - Page 35 Empty Re: Russian Navy: Status & News #2

    Post  Tolstoy Wed May 11, 2016 8:31 am

    Stealthflanker wrote:The traditional double hull layout of Russian submarine already offer survivability against mines or torpedo.

    One can of course make longer standoff between outer "light hull" and pressure hull, but this directly increase the submarine's size.

    On a related note Stealthflanker, will the Yasen & Borei both use the same type of nuclear reactor?
    GarryB
    GarryB


    Posts : 40489
    Points : 40989
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Russian Navy: Status & News #2 - Page 35 Empty Re: Russian Navy: Status & News #2

    Post  GarryB Fri May 13, 2016 2:56 am

    OK, that's a little off-topic, but the internet is full of those kind of "arguments".

    Everybody knows the guy with the most expensive weapons always wins...

    That justifies the enormous amounts of money they spend while they have homeless people and empty houses all over their country...

    Then why not to replace 16xP-500 with say 48/64xKh-35 in upgraded version. Guess saturation attack against any naval ship group would be success.

    The Kh-35 is for patrol vessels and aircraft use, on paper having more is better, but the layered defences of most navies are optimised to defend against a numbers subsonic attack... the whole purpose of supersonic anti ship missiles is to reduce the reaction time of the target to increase the chances of missiles getting through.

    In other words it is better to have 16 missiles that can get through than to have 100 missiles that probably wont... even when most of the time a single unexpected missile generally has a very good chance of penetrating even the best defences.

    One modular? like 22160?

    Modular actually makes more sense in larger ships.... a vessel with the capacity for 10 vertical launch bins that can be varied... ie for a surface to air role you have one or two UKSK launchers and the other 8-9 launch bins being SAMs of various types.

    For very small ships where only one or two launch bins are possible anyway it becomes less useful... though from a logistics and training perspective it is still good system as all standard options are available... ie it can still carry land attack or anti ship or anti sub weapons in any combination.


    This is maybe Soviet talk but still AFAIK offically used in Russian Navy.
    Official class is rocket/artillery ship subclass: small missile ship for 22800

    It is also Official to call an assault rifle an avtomat. Are you going to stop referring to Assault Rifles and only ever call them avtomats?

    I never joined the Soviet or Russian navy, and am therefore not bound by their rules and traditions.
    GunshipDemocracy
    GunshipDemocracy


    Posts : 6165
    Points : 6185
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    Russian Navy: Status & News #2 - Page 35 Empty Re: Russian Navy: Status & News #2

    Post  GunshipDemocracy Tue May 17, 2016 12:08 pm

    GarryB wrote:

    Then why not to replace 16xP-500 with say 48/64xKh-35 in upgraded version. Guess saturation attack against any naval ship group would be success.

    The Kh-35 is for patrol vessels and aircraft use, on paper having more is better, but the layered defences of most navies are optimised to defend against a numbers subsonic attack... the whole purpose of supersonic anti ship missiles is to reduce the reaction time of the target to increase the chances of missiles getting through.

    In other words it is better to have 16 missiles that can get through than to have 100 missiles that probably wont... even when most of the time a single unexpected missile generally has a very good chance of penetrating even the best defences.



    I am sure that saturation attack is not that bad idea, Kalibrs are also subsonic ... and western systems surely are or soon will be upgraded also to fight supersonic AShMs,

    But Kh-35 range would be insufficient then probably if 2 Kalibrs for one P-500 is still good trade. Of course AAD/ASW nice to upgrade too.




    One modular? like 22160?

    Modular actually makes more sense in larger ships.... a vessel with the capacity for 10 vertical launch bins that can be varied... ie for a surface to air role you have one or two UKSK launchers and the other 8-9 launch bins being SAMs of various types.

    For very small ships where only one or two launch bins are possible anyway it becomes less useful... though from a logistics and training perspective it is still good system as all standard options are available... ie it can still carry land attack or anti ship or anti sub weapons in any combination.



    well but project 22160 are already modular just in current variant issued as patrol ships Smile to me is a bit ilogical not to build en mass 22160 in different variants they can still have 8 kalibrs, helo, Paket and Shtill vls wqhat is not bad at all.







    This is maybe Soviet talk but still AFAIK offically used in Russian Navy.
    Official class is rocket/artillery ship subclass: small missile ship for 22800

    It is also Official to call an assault rifle an avtomat. Are you going to stop referring to Assault Rifles and only ever call them avtomats?

    I never joined the Soviet or Russian navy, and am therefore not bound by their rules and traditions.
    [/quote]



    True, but I am glad I have helped you to expand horizons wrt small missile ships i.e. that this is not name for big ones just 3rd rank boat in RN Razz
    GunshipDemocracy
    GunshipDemocracy


    Posts : 6165
    Points : 6185
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    Russian Navy: Status & News #2 - Page 35 Empty Re: Russian Navy: Status & News #2

    Post  GunshipDemocracy Tue May 17, 2016 12:17 pm

    The sixth nuclear submarine of project 885 "Yasen" will lay 29 July

    http://ria.ru/defense_safety/20160517/1435010651.html






    Russia is not discussing the possibility of transfer in leasing of India the submarine "Pike-B"

    РИА Новости http://ria.ru/world/20160517/1435156971.html#ixzz48vVDMVzl

    Sponsored content


    Russian Navy: Status & News #2 - Page 35 Empty Re: Russian Navy: Status & News #2

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Fri Nov 15, 2024 1:29 am