Russian Navy: Status & News #3

AlfaT8 wrote:I've been wondering for a while now, but why hasn't Russia deployed any Piranya-750 midget subs, they seem very useful for coastal defense especially in the BS and the Baltic, it looks like the 750B version might carry 4 Clubs/Kalibers, cheaper and faster to build than even conventional Kilo subs, and since there short range anyway you might as well make them completely Electric (Batt/AIP), no navy in there right mind would dare enter Russian brown waters with these things around.

And there's also the possibility of deploying these in rivers so you'll also have long range Kalibers, ready to fire there.

Having a few of them would be nice but they jut can't replace Kilos. They can be dangerous but once they lunched their weapons they are defenceless. A kilo can rearm its tubes and lunch another Attack. Torpedos doesn't have 100% probability of kill specially now that ships are armed with active anti torpedo torpedos.

However for deep reco and point defence they can be usefull.

Why would you send a sub in a river , you can lunch Kalibr from a truck: much much cheaper.

Isos wrote:

AlfaT8 wrote:I've been wondering for a while now, but why hasn't Russia deployed any Piranya-750 midget subs, they seem very useful for coastal defense especially in the BS and the Baltic, it looks like the 750B version might carry 4 Clubs/Kalibers, cheaper and faster to build than even conventional Kilo subs, and since there short range anyway you might as well make them completely Electric (Batt/AIP), no navy in there right mind would dare enter Russian brown waters with these things around.

And there's also the possibility of deploying these in rivers so you'll also have long range Kalibers, ready to fire there.

Having a few of them would be nice but they jut can't replace Kilos. They can be dangerous but once they lunched their weapons they are defenceless. A kilo can rearm its tubes and lunch another Attack. Torpedos doesn't have 100% probability of kill specially now that ships are armed with active anti torpedo torpedos.


However for deep reco and point defence they can be usefull.

Why would you send a sub in a river , you can lunch Kalibr from a truck: much much cheaper.

You sure they can't reload, i haven't been able to find a proper diagram.
That said, i am more interested in using them as cruise missile launchers, with a range of 2500 to 4000km, also i am not proposing these as replacement for the Kilos.
Uhm, i only know of the Paket anti-torpedo system, i don't recall there being any western counterpart, much less such a systems being actively deployed?

Point defense?? ...no, more Kaliber luanchers, harder to detect, target and well dispersed.

Because of the INF treaty.

Because of the INF treaty.

They developed a model that can be launched from a shipping container... presumably such weapons can be launched from any shipping container anywhere... whether it is on a ship or the train yard or a train or truck.

It would not take much adaptation to allow them to be released from the back of a cargo aircraft in mid flight like air dropped cargo... a new Il-476 could carry 60 tons of missiles in launch containers... so lets say 20 missiles... assuming the shipping crates are not used and a small sleeve container for the missiles is used... an An-124 could therefore carry about 70 odd missiles and drop them out the back of the aircraft at say 10,000m... a parachute deploys and the missile falls out the bottom... deploys its wings and pulls up 90 degrees and starts its flight to its target...

Small subs are useful for certain things but for most tasks larger vessels are more useful for a much wider range of tasks... so it makes more sense to build a couple of small vessels and rather more bigger vessels.

GarryB wrote:

Because of the INF treaty.

They developed a model that can be launched from a shipping container... presumably such weapons can be launched from any shipping container anywhere... whether it is on a ship or the train yard or a train or truck.

It would not take much adaptation to allow them to be released from the back of a cargo aircraft in mid flight like air dropped cargo... a new Il-476 could carry 60 tons of missiles in launch containers... so lets say 20 missiles... assuming the shipping crates are not used and a small sleeve container for the missiles is used... an An-124 could therefore carry about 70 odd missiles and drop them out the back of the aircraft at say 10,000m... a parachute deploys and the missile falls out the bottom... deploys its wings and pulls up 90 degrees and starts its flight to its target...

Small subs are useful for certain things but for most tasks larger vessels are more useful for a much wider range of tasks... so it makes more sense to build a couple of small vessels and rather more bigger vessels.

Yes, yes, i am aware of the container option, but at the end of the day they're still limited to max 500km range and airdropping them from point A to point B will also take time.

On the other hand, you could use midget subs carrying an equal load, but with a range of 2500km or more, so even with the subs short range it wouldn't matter as much, and the sub has the ability to relocate and also easily hide as well, they can also be used in rivers.
I am all for bigger vessels, but by the looks of things, that's gonna take a long while, this is why Russia has been so focused on there Corvettes recently, so having some Piranyas in the water isn't a bad idea if you ask me.

You sure they can't reload, i haven't been able to find a proper diagram.
That said, i am more interested in using them as cruise missile launchers, with a range of 2500 to 4000km, also i am not proposing these as replacement for the Kilos.
Uhm, i only know of the Paket anti-torpedo system, i don't recall there being any western counterpart, much less such a systems being actively deployed?

Point defense?? ...no, more Kaliber luanchers, harder to detect, target and well dispersed.

Because of the INF treaty.

They have like 4 or 6 torpedos fitted in their lunch tubes which for most project are 400 mm tubes and if it's a bigger one they carry less misiles. They doesn't have space for more munitions, if we talk about true midget subs. So you can't reload them. And reloading a midget sub at sea is not an easy task.

Kilo and future VLS equiped Kalina can lunch Kalibr in great quantity.

Yes there is Paket but I've also read that new small kalibr torpedo from the west can target torpedos too. It's not their main role however.

Kalibr are like 2000+ km range so who cares if your lunch plateform is hard to detect. The design of the missile takes in consideration of survavibility of the lunch plateform and the ability of luching them behind your own line of defences. You can put the same amount of missile in container on 1 big merchand vessel as in 20 midget subs. The disperstion is not really needed as they can be program to follow a trajectory programmed in their computer.

Having a plateform for lunching like just 4 Kalibr is not a cheap strategy. Plus the range and the endurence of midget subs are so bad that even a costal Kalibr system can do their job.

INF treaty is for peace time. Container for Kalibr can be transfered from a ship to a truck in matter of minutes. Russia is fearing that USA does the same with their Mk-41 VLS used for the Euro ABM. They are saying "we respect INF treaty we put just anti air missiles in them" but actully they can replace them with 2000+ km range tomahwak missiles in matter of minutes.

Isos wrote:

You sure they can't reload, i haven't been able to find a proper diagram.
That said, i am more interested in using them as cruise missile launchers, with a range of 2500 to 4000km, also i am not proposing these as replacement for the Kilos.
Uhm, i only know of the Paket anti-torpedo system, i don't recall there being any western counterpart, much less such a systems being actively deployed?

Point defense?? ...no, more Kaliber luanchers, harder to detect, target and well dispersed.

Because of the INF treaty.

They have like 4 or 6 torpedos fitted in their lunch tubes which for most project are 400 mm tubes and if it's a bigger one they carry less misiles. They doesn't have space for more munitions, if we talk about true midget subs. So you can't reload them. And reloading a midget sub at sea is not an easy task.

Kilo and future VLS equiped Kalina can lunch Kalibr in great quantity.

Yes there is Paket but I've also read that new small kalibr torpedo from the west can target torpedos too. It's not their main role however.

Kalibr are like 2000+ km range so who cares if your lunch plateform is hard to detect. The design of the missile takes in consideration of survavibility of the lunch plateform and the ability of luching them behind your own line of defences. You can put the same amount of missile in container on 1 big merchand vessel as in 20 midget subs. The disperstion is not really needed as they can be program to follow a trajectory programmed in their computer.

Having a plateform for lunching like just 4 Kalibr is not a cheap strategy. Plus the range and the endurence of midget subs are so bad that even a costal Kalibr system can do their job.

INF treaty is for peace time. Container for Kalibr can be transfered from a ship to a truck in matter of minutes. Russia is fearing that USA does the same with their Mk-41 VLS used for the Euro ABM. They are saying "we respect INF treaty we put just anti air missiles in them" but actully they can replace them with 2000+ km range tomahwak missiles in matter of minutes.

Ok, let's go with that then since Midget subs are normally shoot and scoot.

The hell, i was aware of the Kalina/Lada, but i wasn't aware Kilo's could use Kalibers from submerged positions, are these the 877s or the new 636.3??
If it's the latter, then you only have 6 of them each carrying 10 Kaliber, it's good, but i prefer having more assets in the water.

The issue with containers is that they're not dedicated sea based assets so they would still be considered ground based regardless, ergo have a max 500km range (supposedly), also don't expect NATO to hold back just because there on civilian vessels.
Dispersion is needed if you want to maximize to survival of your offensive assets, make it as difficult as possible for your opponent to dislodge your assets.

True, although i am not certain since this won't be your average midget sub and i am curious to see how much of a range it could have with today's technology, also like the containers, the coastal systems will also have a max 500km range (supposedly).

If that's the case then i am worrying over nothing (and i don't think Kaliber is an AA asset), that said i still recommend building these anyway, you'll have a great product for countries out there that can't afford kilos.

Yes, yes, i am aware of the container option, but at the end of the day they're still limited to max 500km range and airdropping them from point A to point B will also take time.

No.

A single missile container that can be released from a cargo aircraft in flight would be an airlaunched weapon and therefore not subject to the INF treaty which limits ground launched weapons.

Put it on the back of a small river boat with an angle launch tube and rocket booster and again it is not land launched and therefore also not subject to the INF treaty so it can have a range of anything you like... 5,000km or more if you want...

Ok, let's go with that then since Midget subs are normally shoot and scoot.

The hell, i was aware of the Kalina/Lada, but i wasn't aware Kilo's could use Kalibers from submerged positions, are these the 877s or the new 636.3??
If it's the latter, then you only have 6 of them each carrying 10 Kaliber, it's good, but i prefer having more assets in the water.

Why waste time putting cruise missiles in SSKs... they have their own job to do... not waste their time attacking land targets. A single corvette can have 8 missiles ready to fire and are cheaper and easier to make than subs and can be used for other roles as well.

The issue with containers is that they're not dedicated sea based assets so they would still be considered ground based regardless, ergo have a max 500km range (supposedly), also don't expect NATO to hold back just because there on civilian vessels.
Dispersion is needed if you want to maximize to survival of your offensive assets, make it as difficult as possible for your opponent to dislodge your assets.

There would be millions of shipping crates in train and ship depots in Russia... when the INF treaty is torn up over US violations with tomahawk missile tubes in eastern europe then 5,000km range missiles can be used.

Note the INF treaty covers missiles with ranges of 500km to 5,500km, so a 6,000km range cruise missile is perfectly legal...

GarryB wrote:

Yes, yes, i am aware of the container option, but at the end of the day they're still limited to max 500km range and airdropping them from point A to point B will also take time.

No.

A single missile container that can be released from a cargo aircraft in flight would be an airlaunched weapon and therefore not subject to the INF treaty which limits ground launched weapons.

Put it on the back of a small river boat with an angle launch tube and rocket booster and again it is not land launched and therefore also not subject to the INF treaty so it can have a range of anything you like... 5,000km or more if you want...

I honestly wonder about that, since it's not a dedicated sea based platform, but the INF doesn't say it needs to be a dedicated sea based, at least from what i can make out from that blob of text.

GarryB wrote:

Ok, let's go with that then since Midget subs are normally shoot and scoot.

The hell, i was aware of the Kalina/Lada, but i wasn't aware Kilo's could use Kalibers from submerged positions, are these the 877s or the new 636.3??
If it's the latter, then you only have 6 of them each carrying 10 Kaliber, it's good, but i prefer having more assets in the water.

Why waste time putting cruise missiles in SSKs... they have their own job to do... not waste their time attacking land targets. A single corvette can have 8 missiles ready to fire and are cheaper and easier to make than subs and can be used for other roles as well.

Why not, considering Russia's lack of major surface vessels it makes sense to put cruise missiles in everything possible (containers for example).
And there lies the question, is a corvette really cheaper then a midget sub, if so than there's still the aspect of a midget sub being much more difficult to search&destroy.

GarryB wrote:

The issue with containers is that they're not dedicated sea based assets so they would still be considered ground based regardless, ergo have a max 500km range (supposedly), also don't expect NATO to hold back just because there on civilian vessels.
Dispersion is needed if you want to maximize to survival of your offensive assets, make it as difficult as possible for your opponent to dislodge your assets.

There would be millions of shipping crates in train and ship depots in Russia... when the INF treaty is torn up over US violations with tomahawk missile tubes in eastern europe then 5,000km range missiles can be used.

Note the INF treaty covers missiles with ranges of 500km to 5,500km, so a 6,000km range cruise missile is perfectly legal...

True, which is good, although i wonder how many container have been procured?
If that happens than i have nothing to worry about, no sane adversary would dare launch an attack, unless they went full retard.
No doubt, hell if that happens it may even force the western dogs to sign a new treaty.

Some of you have been following closely the ships deployed in Syria.

Can we have a list of the Russian ships currently in Syria including the ships there before the deployment and the ships coming in the following days?

I honestly wonder about that, since it's not a dedicated sea based platform, but the INF doesn't say it needs to be a dedicated sea based, at least from what i can make out from that blob of text.

The INF treaty defines banned systems as ballistic or cruise missiles launched from ground based launchers... it does not include Mk-41 vertical launch systems the US Navy uses when they are mounted on ships, but when mounted on a land base in eastern europe such launchers are not only able to launch SAMs but Tomahawk cruise missiles so they represent a violation of the INF treaty.

I don't see the US dismantling those launchers meaning Russia would be free to build land based or truck based UKSK launchers where they want on the land too... making the INF treaty not worth the paper it is printed on.

Why not, considering Russia's lack of major surface vessels it makes sense to put cruise missiles in everything possible (containers for example).

Because most of their new vessels will carry plenty of launch tubes... why waste space on conventional subs... of course UKSK tubes in a conventional sub are useful because they can carry anti ship and anti sub missiles as well as land attack cruise missiles.

They could build a cruise missile carrier boat that is just hundreds of UKSK tubes for land attack roles in conventional conflicts. In other types of conflict they could have perhaps S-500s fitted in the large tubes of the UKSK launchers, and also perhaps develop UAVS that can be launched from such tubes...

And there lies the question, is a corvette really cheaper then a midget sub, if so than there's still the aspect of a midget sub being much more difficult to search&destroy.

A sub is a sneak attack weapon... a corvette is a multi purpose vessel with a much wider range of overt uses. They are different enough for both to be useful.

True, which is good, although i wonder how many container have been procured?
If that happens than i have nothing to worry about, no sane adversary would dare launch an attack, unless they went full retard.
No doubt, hell if that happens it may even force the western dogs to sign a new treaty.

The INF treaty is useful in that it limits US weapons in europe and eliminates an entire class of weapon from the ground in europe.

When it was signed the SS-20 was a potent powerful weapon that was very destabilising... weapons in Turkey also meant there might be 2-5 minutes between launch and a direct attack on Moscow... that is a real hair trigger... 2 minutes to decide if it is a mistake or WWIII... no real time to talk to anyone... just destroy the world or not.

Today however the radar coverage of Russia and europe is much much better and the air defence capabilities are also much better so most missiles fired could be intercepted...

It remains a limit on US missiles in europe so Russia does not withdraw, but when tomahawk launch tubes are being built as part of an ABM system in europe then they will have to say enough if enough and withdraw... which would allow development of the IRBM range of weapons which are cheaper and very effective in theatre conflicts like europe, the ME and Asia.

Of course in the near future there will be hypersonic cruise missiles on the table and you can bet they wont have super long range, but will have a range greater than 500km... they will be like Ballistic missiles in speed, but with the manouver capability of an aircraft they will be much harder to intercept than a BM.. . I suspect they will become the new IRBMs and kill the INF treaty for good.

Not sure where this goes.

MOSCOW (Sputnik) — The combat readiness of two Utes coastal silo-based missile systems in Crimea was restored and confirmed by successful launches of the P-35 cruise missiles, a source the Crimean in law enforcement agencies told RIA Novosti.

"It was agreed to set on duty the Utes coastal silo-based missile systems, located in Crimea. To confirm the operational readiness of the systems… the launches of P-35 cruise missiles were performed, and they were successful," the source said on Friday. According to the source, there are currently two missile systems of the kind at the disposal of the Russian Black Sea fleet, each of them has two missile launch containers. The Utes missile systems with P-35 (NATO reporting name SS-N-3a Shaddock) cruise missiles are capable of hitting targets at a distance of 300 kilometers (186 miles) The P-35s are equipped with 560-kilos high-explosive warheads, and the flight speed of the missiles exceeds 2,000 kilometers per hour.

Read more: https://sputniknews.com/russia/201611191047609773-russia-utes-crimea-missiles-ready/

Aldin Abazović ‏@Ald_Aba 2h2 hours ago

"Yantar" Russian Research Vessel now at Bandar Abbas, #Iran

GarryB wrote:

I honestly wonder about that, since it's not a dedicated sea based platform, but the INF doesn't say it needs to be a dedicated sea based, at least from what i can make out from that blob of text.

The INF treaty defines banned systems as ballistic or cruise missiles launched from ground based launchers... it does not include Mk-41 vertical launch systems the US Navy uses when they are mounted on ships, but when mounted on a land base in eastern europe such launchers are not only able to launch SAMs but Tomahawk cruise missiles so they represent a violation of the INF treaty.

I don't see the US dismantling those launchers meaning Russia would be free to build land based or truck based UKSK launchers where they want on the land too... making the INF treaty not worth the paper it is printed on.

True, true, but the INF is still somewhat standing, for how long who knows, this all feels like mission creep kinda thing happening, slowly becoming irrelevant.

GarryB wrote:

Why not, considering Russia's lack of major surface vessels it makes sense to put cruise missiles in everything possible (containers for example).

Because most of their new vessels will carry plenty of launch tubes... why waste space on conventional subs... of course UKSK tubes in a conventional sub are useful because they can carry anti ship and anti sub missiles as well as land attack cruise missiles.

They could build a cruise missile carrier boat that is just hundreds of UKSK tubes for land attack roles in conventional conflicts. In other types of conflict they could have perhaps S-500s fitted in the large tubes of the UKSK launchers, and also perhaps develop UAVS that can be launched from such tubes...

Meh, i feel like they could use more.
Because when your opponent has so many more vessels than you, you're gonna have to make sure whatever you have can engage whatever target they can, be it on land or sea.
I don't think the one they're using in subs is called UKSK, but yea, also i am not strictly recommending the VL method, launching them like the Kilo's is also good.

Yeaa....considering Russia's current pace of shipbuilding, i wouldn't hold my breath, it'll be a while before they can replace the Slava cruisers, although i can see a Borey cruise missile sub being possible, like what the U.S did with some Ohio's, although the Kalina's gonna arrive soon anyway.
Nah, i don't see Russia unifying there cruise missile and AD missiles launcher together anytime soon.

GarryB wrote:

And there lies the question, is a corvette really cheaper then a midget sub, if so than there's still the aspect of a midget sub being much more difficult to search&destroy.

A sub is a sneak attack weapon... a corvette is a multi purpose vessel with a much wider range of overt uses. They are different enough for both to be useful.

True, and i would like to see some of these subs be made.

GarryB wrote:

True, which is good, although i wonder how many container have been procured?
If that happens than i have nothing to worry about, no sane adversary would dare launch an attack, unless they went full retard.
No doubt, hell if that happens it may even force the western dogs to sign a new treaty.

The INF treaty is useful in that it limits US weapons in europe and eliminates an entire class of weapon from the ground in europe.

When it was signed the SS-20 was a potent powerful weapon that was very destabilising... weapons in Turkey also meant there might be 2-5 minutes between launch and a direct attack on Moscow... that is a real hair trigger... 2 minutes to decide if it is a mistake or WWIII... no real time to talk to anyone... just destroy the world or not.

Today however the radar coverage of Russia and europe is much much better and the air defence capabilities are also much better so most missiles fired could be intercepted...

It remains a limit on US missiles in europe so Russia does not withdraw, but when tomahawk launch tubes are being built as part of an ABM system in europe then they will have to say enough if enough and withdraw... which would allow development of the IRBM range of weapons which are cheaper and very effective in theatre conflicts like europe, the ME and Asia.

Of course in the near future there will be hypersonic cruise missiles on the table and you can bet they wont have super long range, but will have a range greater than 500km... they will be like Ballistic missiles in speed, but with the manouver capability of an aircraft they will be much harder to intercept than a BM.. . I suspect they will become the new IRBMs and kill the INF treaty for good.

If or when the INF treaty falls, it will not be Russia to withdraw from it first, although weakened, it is still to some extent preventing the major build up of IRBMs near Russia's border, since there are only 2 " rogue states" with very limited numbers of (imaginary) missiles, the ABM is gonna be limited at least to that extent.
Right now the U.S is using some BS pretext and Russia is just being vague about it's platforms capabilities, so some parity is being maintained.

Actually idea of mini subs is very good. But with as AIP powered drones. no need for human factor enables long long lasting patrols or drone might be really deep submersible...

For most subs 400mm torpedo is enough to kill, fo rbig ships mybe shkval 2?


With such drones most of nato aggressors think twice before entering protected area... at the end of the day - oops sorry malfunction of drone and your destroyer is down but we warned you





Coastal missile complex "Bastion" is deployed in the Kaliningrad region

It can close out of the Danish Straits to the Baltic sea and covers all possible targets on the territory of Poland

Moscow. 21 Nov. INTERFAX.RU - Group of forces in the Kaliningrad special district is reinforced with a division of coastal missile complex "Bastion", said on Monday "Interfax" a source familiar with the situation.

He said that the division became part of the missile join the Baltic fleet.

19 November, the press service of the Baltic fleet reported that the missile join the Navy "training infrastructure and planned upgrading to a new shore and operational-tactical missile complexes".

The press service did not elaborate on what kind of complexes is upgrading.

General Director Kaluga instrument-making plant "Typhoon" Andrei Petrakov said earlier that in September transferred to the Baltic fleet coastal missile complex "Ball".

"Fire and forget"
Mobile coastal missile complex "Bastion" with a unified supersonic antiship homing missile "Onyx" designed and produced in machine-building NPO (Reutov, Moscow oblast, included in the Corporation "Tactical missiles").

The complex "Bastion" is designed to protect the coast stretching over 600 km and defeat surface ships of various classes and types, operating in the composition of the airborne compounds, convoys, ship and aircraft carrier battle groups and single ships and land-based Radiocontrast targets in conditions of intensive fire and electronic countermeasures.

Ammunition one set can include up to 36 missiles. Rocket has over-the-horizon firing range. It implemented the principle of "fire and forget".

Closed the coast
As reported on 15 November, Russian defense Minister army General Sergei Shoigu, in connection with the use of "Onyx" on ground targets terrorists in Syria, "to put coastal complexes "Bastion", which effectively closed the entire coast, and today we have these complexes are able to hit both marine and ground targets at a distance of 350 km of the sea and about 450 km of the land."

According to military experts, such a range when deploying a "Bastion" in the Kaliningrad region and its ability to operate against ground targets allows this complex, if necessary, to close the exit from the Danish Straits to the Baltic sea for ships of the potential enemy and "close" all possible targets on the territory of Poland.

As previously reported by Shoigu, in 2016, "the Navy will receive five more coastal missile complexes".

"In the future, the fleets will to do four sets every year," he said. According to him, by 2021 Russia will be able to completely retool coastal missile units with modern weapons.

Earlier it was reported that the Baltic from the black sea fleet sent two small missile ship project 21631 "Green Vale" and "Serpukhov". They are carriers of cruise missiles"Caliber-NK".

Tenders issued for the dismantling of 2 Kilo class submarines and 2 Sovremenny Class destroyers.

franco wrote:Tenders issued for the dismantling of 2 Kilo class submarines and 2 Sovremenny Class destroyers.  

Can you elaborate a little more?

franco wrote:2 Sovremenny Class destroyers.  

Don't know about the Kilos, Russians better keep as many as they can. But the Sovs have been notorious early-on with their boilers. Late Russian and PLAN variants maybe no so much. But these are potentially old, unmodified Soviet relics.

KiloGolf wrote:

franco wrote:2 Sovremenny Class destroyers.  

Don't know about the Kilos, Russians better keep as many as they can. But the Sovs have been notorious early-on with their boilers. Late Russian and PLAN variants maybe no so much. But these are potentially old, unmodified Soviet relics.

I'm pretty sure these four probably haven't seen any activity in decades.

With Russian Navy it either being used or rotted away long ago. They won't be dismantling anything that moves anytime soon.

eehnie wrote:

franco wrote:Tenders issued for the dismantling of 2 Kilo class submarines and 2 Sovremenny Class destroyers.  

Can you elaborate a little more?

Two of each to be scrapped. Pretty sure there is no value in keeping them around.

franco wrote:

eehnie wrote:

franco wrote:Tenders issued for the dismantling of 2 Kilo class submarines and 2 Sovremenny Class destroyers.  

Can you elaborate a little more?

Two of each to be scrapped. Pretty sure there is no value in keeping them around.

Then I understand are likely units decommissioned in recent years. I understand it mean not new decommissions.

I commented about the reports of sales and auctions of material from scrapping and of spare parts in the refered to the land and air warfare. In the refered to sea warfare, it has been an important activity. And in this case the reports are even better because they talk about the exact ship scrapped. The sales and auctions of scrap of ships in 2016 come mostly from auxiliary ships decommissioned between 2009 and 2014. According to the reports the scrapping queue seems not very long.

Surely these 4 have been decommissioned around the same time.

eehnie wrote:

franco wrote:

eehnie wrote:

franco wrote:Tenders issued for the dismantling of 2 Kilo class submarines and 2 Sovremenny Class destroyers.  

Can you elaborate a little more?

Two of each to be scrapped. Pretty sure there is no value in keeping them around.

Then I understand are likely units decommissioned in recent years. I understand it mean not new decommissions.

I commented about the reports of sales and auctions of material from scrapping and of spare parts in the refered to the land and air warfare. In the refered to sea warfare, it has been an important activity. And in this case the reports are even better because they talk about the exact ship scrapped. The sales and auctions of scrap of ships in 2016 come mostly from auxiliary ships decommissioned between 2009 and 2014. According to the reports the scrapping queue seems not very long.

Surely these 4 have been decommissioned around the same time.

Here is a further story about the subs.
http://bmpd.livejournal.com/2286883.html

franco wrote:Tenders issued for the dismantling of 2 Kilo class submarines and 2 Sovremenny Class destroyers.  

do we know which Sovremenny Class destroyers franco?

George1 wrote:

franco wrote:Tenders issued for the dismantling of 2 Kilo class submarines and 2 Sovremenny Class destroyers.  

do we know which Sovremenny Class destroyers franco?

It was mentioned in the original article but I cannot locate it now. Sure it will show up.

franco wrote:

eehnie wrote:

franco wrote:

eehnie wrote:

franco wrote:Tenders issued for the dismantling of 2 Kilo class submarines and 2 Sovremenny Class destroyers.  

Can you elaborate a little more?

Two of each to be scrapped. Pretty sure there is no value in keeping them around.

Then I understand are likely units decommissioned in recent years. I understand it mean not new decommissions.

I commented about the reports of sales and auctions of material from scrapping and of spare parts in the refered to the land and air warfare. In the refered to sea warfare, it has been an important activity. And in this case the reports are even better because they talk about the exact ship scrapped. The sales and auctions of scrap of ships in 2016 come mostly from auxiliary ships decommissioned between 2009 and 2014. According to the reports the scrapping queue seems not very long.

Surely these 4 have been decommissioned around the same time.

Here is a further story about the subs.
http://bmpd.livejournal.com/2286883.html

They are the last two decommissioned of this class. Decommissioned in 2012 and 2016.

Baltic fleet ships to carry out ten new voyages in upcoming year

In the second half of 2017, the Baltic fleet ships will take part in the ‘West-2017’ military exercises

KALINIGRAD, December 1 /TASS/. The ships and submarines of the Russian Northern Fleet will carry out voyages to the Arctic, the Atlantic Oceans and the Mediterranean Sea in the new academic year, which started on Thursday, the fleet’s press service said.

"The Northern Fleet will continue the practice of sending ships to the Arctic, the Atlantic Oceans and the Mediterranean Sea," the press service quoted Vice-Admiral Nikolai Yevmenov as saying.

Yevmenov said that development and improvement of the Arctic infrastructure as well as the maintenance of the fleet’s high defense capability would be the Northern Fleet’s priorities for the new academic year.

The crews of ships, submarines and supply vessels carried out more than 30 long-distance ships and improved their naval skills in conditions of Arctic seas and other parts of the world ocean in the 2016 academic year.

Russia’s Baltic fleet also has huge plans for the new academic year.

Baltic fleet ships will carry out 10 voyages in the new academic year, Baltic Fleet’s Spokesman Roman Martov said on Thursday.

"Ships and vessels continue fulfilling tasks in and outside the Baltic fleet’s area of responsibility both independently and as part of the permanent naval task force in the Mediterranean. They also call at and pay visits to foreign ports. The ships and vessels will carry out the tasks of 10 combat services in the new academic year which is much more than in the previous period," Martov stressed.
He refused to clarify where exactly the Baltic fleet ships would head to in the future.

In the second half of 2017, the Baltic fleet ships will take part in the ‘West-2017’ military exercises and joint international maneuvers.

Source: http://tass.com/defense/916097

---

Zapad (West)-81 was one of (if not) the biggest military excercises of the former Soviet Union, so we can expect great things from Russia on land, air and sea by next year.  

Edit: In my opinion, if the Russian MoD decides to establish a "Mediterranean Task Force", they should form it from the ships of the Black Sea Fleet, since it is more close. By saying this, I don't mean that they should relocate everything  (including Admiral Kuznetsov aircraft carrier and Peter the Great heavy guided missile cruiser) to Sevastopol. Of course NOT! What I'm really trying to point out here is that, for example Admiral Grigorovich-class frigates of the BSF could do very well if they need to attack ground targets (with Kalibr cruise missiles),or establishing territorial air defense to a certain extent (with its Stihl SAMs). But not only them, but the majority of the BSF ships (including the Moskva (Slava-class) cruiser, and the two Krivak-class frigates) can be a valuable/crucial part of this task force, if needed.