Russian Navy: Status & News #3

kvs wrote:

George1 wrote:Chinese diesel engines broke down at the first test of the anti-sabotage boat of Project 21980

http://bmpd.livejournal.com/2515970.html

Looks like there was incompetence in the design for the engine load (i.e. size requirement) and transmission.   Engine failure after
such a short amount of time is due to factory defect or abuse.   It is possible that the engines were defective but we need more information.

Its completely reverse-engineered German design. Problem is the quality control and chinese tendency to lack good quality materials at least compared to Germans.

My fathers little fishing boat had a Chinese diesel engine and that damn thing would chug away for days... very reliable and very fuel efficient too.

It cost him about $10-$20 per day in fuel... my uncle had a fizz boat and it burned 20 times that in a few hours.

GarryB wrote:My fathers little fishing boat had a Chinese diesel engine and that damn thing would chug away for days... very reliable and very fuel efficient too.

It cost him about $10-$20 per day in fuel... my uncle had a fizz boat and it burned 20 times that in a few hours.

So my dad has Chinese built 4-stroke petrol digger, with 4hp, it will work forever, yet its not to be compared with MTUs.

Yeah... stupid me... thinking that a chinese made marinised diesel mounted in a boat could possibly have anything to do with a chinese made diesel engine designed for use in boats... you know... marinised.

Obviously the Chinese cannot build engines... only the Germans and of course the Americans can do that...

BTW weren't you the one bitching a short while back about how the Chinese are making x number of boats and Russia needs to keep up... surely if their engines are rubbish then we can probably assume their weapons and sensors are also crap so who cares?

GarryB wrote:Yeah... stupid me... thinking that a chinese made marinised diesel mounted in a boat could possibly have anything to do with a chinese made diesel engine designed for use in boats... you know... marinised.

Obviously the Chinese cannot build engines... only the Germans and of course the Americans can do that...

BTW weren't you the one bitching a short while back about how the Chinese are making x number of boats and Russia needs to keep up... surely if their engines are rubbish then we can probably assume their weapons and sensors are also crap so who cares?

Right, because fishing boats and frigates tend to use same type of engines.

Actually when its about engines of this type little comes to compete with MTU, Wartsila and MAN. There is a reason why Chinese are trying to master reverse engineered MTU designs.

And its not true? Fact that their engines are of substandard quality compared to original designs, doesnt mean they are all somehow useless. Engines in majority of Russian motor vehicles are rubbish, doesnt mean they are useless.

Militarov wrote:

GarryB wrote:Yeah... stupid me... thinking that a chinese made marinised diesel mounted in a boat could possibly have anything to do with a chinese made diesel engine designed for use in boats... you know... marinised.

Obviously the Chinese cannot build engines... only the Germans and of course the Americans can do that...

BTW weren't you the one bitching a short while back about how the Chinese are making x number of boats and Russia needs to keep up... surely if their engines are rubbish then we can probably assume their weapons and sensors are also crap so who cares?

Right, because fishing boats and frigates tend to use same type of engines.  

Actually when its about engines of this type little comes to compete with MTU, Wartsila and MAN. There is a reason why Chinese are trying to master reverse engineered MTU designs.

And its not true? Fact that their engines are of substandard quality compared to original designs, doesnt mean they are all somehow useless. Engines in majority of Russian motor vehicles are rubbish, doesnt mean they are useless.

Sorry Mili, but i gotta disagree, MTU and MAN sure, but Wartsila not so much, we got some big ones over here and some time ago one of them broke its fricking crank shaft and the worst part is that the company did not stand by there warranty costing us an unforgivable amount.

GarryB wrote:My fathers little fishing boat had a Chinese diesel engine and that damn thing would chug away for days... very reliable and very fuel efficient too.

It cost him about $10-$20 per day in fuel... my uncle had a fizz boat and it burned 20 times that in a few hours.

There is a very big difference between a small fishing boat and a Fizz, which from what i can see in the pics is more akin to a small yacht, that said, i would tell your uncle to get that engine checked.

AlfaT8 wrote:

Militarov wrote:

GarryB wrote:Yeah... stupid me... thinking that a chinese made marinised diesel mounted in a boat could possibly have anything to do with a chinese made diesel engine designed for use in boats... you know... marinised.

Obviously the Chinese cannot build engines... only the Germans and of course the Americans can do that...

BTW weren't you the one bitching a short while back about how the Chinese are making x number of boats and Russia needs to keep up... surely if their engines are rubbish then we can probably assume their weapons and sensors are also crap so who cares?

Right, because fishing boats and frigates tend to use same type of engines.  

Actually when its about engines of this type little comes to compete with MTU, Wartsila and MAN. There is a reason why Chinese are trying to master reverse engineered MTU designs.

And its not true? Fact that their engines are of substandard quality compared to original designs, doesnt mean they are all somehow useless. Engines in majority of Russian motor vehicles are rubbish, doesnt mean they are useless.

Sorry Mili, but i gotta disagree, MTU and MAN sure, but Wartsila not so much, we got some big ones over here and some time ago one of them broke its fricking crank shaft and the worst part is that the company did not stand by there warranty costing us an unforgivable amount.

Doesnt mean its bad engine, i personally have bad experience with certain Mercedes engine, yet everyone else with same engine never had a single issue. Happens.

Wartsila in general is very good, there is reason why they are so much required these days, they expanded production few times though last decade due to high demand.

Militarov wrote:Doesnt mean its bad engine, i personally have bad experience with certain Mercedes engine, yet everyone else with same engine never had a single issue. Happens.

Wartsila in general is very good, there is reason why they are so much required these days, they expanded production few times though last decade due to high demand.

The problem with these German cars isn't so much there assembly itself, but the parts that are needed for when something does happen, down here there are literally hundreds of abandoned BMWs and Mercs, because getting the parts are crazy expensive.

Odd, for a company that couldn't live up to there warranty to be expanding.

There is a very big difference between a small fishing boat and a Fizz, which from what i can see in the pics is more akin to a small yacht, that said, i would tell your uncle to get that engine checked.

A fizz boat is a jet boat... a big powerful engine that burns rather more fuel and makes a lot more noise and moves a boat round the place much faster... at much higher cost.

Doesnt mean its bad engine, i personally have bad experience with certain Mercedes engine, yet everyone else with same engine never had a single issue. Happens.

Of course... one bad german engine and not all german engines are bad... one problem with one Chinese engine and they don't know how to make engines...

Here in NZ most european cars are stupidly expensive and older British cars are crap... they spend more time being fixed than running.

Japanese cars with Jap engines are the most common here, though Chinese brands are expanding. The first Jap cars were rubbish but after about mid 1980s they became vastly more reliable and cheaper than euro crap.

Plant producing diesel engines for the Russian Navy, pretty discouraging until you get to the end;

http://bmpd.livejournal.com/2530849.html

GarryB wrote:

There is a very big difference between a small fishing boat and a Fizz, which from what i can see in the pics is more akin to a small yacht, that said, i would tell your uncle to get that engine checked.

A fizz boat is a jet boat... a big powerful engine that burns rather more fuel and makes a lot more noise and moves a boat round the place much faster... at much higher cost.

Doesnt mean its bad engine, i personally have bad experience with certain Mercedes engine, yet everyone else with same engine never had a single issue. Happens.

Of course... one bad german engine and not all german engines are bad... one problem with one Chinese engine and they don't know how to make engines...

Here in NZ most european cars are stupidly expensive and older British cars are crap... they spend more time being fixed than running.

Japanese cars with Jap engines are the most common here, though Chinese brands are expanding. The first Jap cars were rubbish but after about mid 1980s they became vastly more reliable and cheaper than euro crap.

Chinese are infants in field of marine propulsion systems i am afraid, and there is no way you can take them serious in that field at this moment. They are relying mostly on reverse-engineered foreign designs or older proven designs they obtained though decades, and they often as possible procure foreign engines for their commercial shipping. Even they themself are not very satisfied with domestic production.

franco wrote:Plant producing diesel engines for the Russian Navy, pretty discouraging until you get to the end;

http://bmpd.livejournal.com/2530849.html

the core workshoop needs same tide up and racking, but oterwise the begining is OK as well : )

GarryB wrote:

There is a very big difference between a small fishing boat and a Fizz, which from what i can see in the pics is more akin to a small yacht, that said, i would tell your uncle to get that engine checked.

A fizz boat is a jet boat... a big powerful engine that burns rather more fuel and makes a lot more noise and moves a boat round the place much faster... at much higher cost.

Jet boat?... The Fizz series are all sail boats, anyway different boat type, sadly, i have little experience with jet boats other than it being one of the more "un"reliable method of water propulsion, experienced boat buyers here know this well and avoid it like the plague.

My uncle calls his speed boat (Hamilton jet boat) a fizz boat.

Note Hamilton jet engines for boats were invented in New Zealand BTW.

They can operate in a few inches of water and are a very effective way to propel a small boat especially in shallow water.

GarryB wrote:My uncle calls his speed boat (Hamilton jet boat) a fizz boat.

Note Hamilton jet engines for boats were invented in New Zealand BTW.

They can operate in a few inches of water and are a very effective way to propel a small boat especially in shallow water.

Yea, i got that, got mixed up with the Jeanneau Gin/Sun Fizz series.

True, but by unreliable i meant prone to breakdowns and there a pain to repair.

Surely the weakest part of the entire Russian operation in Syria has been the purchase of 4 cargo ships:

9132 tons Dvinitsa-50 http://www.kchf.ru/ship/vspomog/dvinitsa50.htm
7250 tons Vologda-50 http://www.kchf.ru/ship/vspomog/vologda50.htm
4509 tons Kyzyl-60 http://www.kchf.ru/ship/vspomog/kyzyl60.htm
2099 tons Kazan-60 http://www.kchf.ru/ship/vspomog/kazan60.htm

I think it was not necessary for a relatively small operation like this of Syria. With 523 auxilary ships today for many roles, without count these 4 cargo ships, the need of the purchase seems not a real need. These 523 cover multiple roles, but I think Russia would have enough dry cargo transport ships to this operation without a purchase. The closest auxiliary ships of the Russian Navy would be:

14165 tons Yauza Project 550 http://fleetphoto.ru/ship/20520/ (Also in Syria now)

7230 tons Yamal Project 596P http://fleetphoto.ru/ship/17555/
3947 tons Pechora Project 740 http://fleetphoto.ru/ship/14386/
1915 tons Yrghiz Project 572 http://fleetphoto.ru/ship/42760/
1915 tons Bira Project 572 http://fleetphoto.ru/ship/716/
1192 tons VTR-140 Project 773 modified to dry-cargo ship http://fleetphoto.ru/ship/26719/

Without entering in specific armament transport ships (Project 20180/20181, Project 1791, Project 20360 and Project 1823). Also to increase the use of amphibious landing ships would be in the mix to finnish the use of these four ships in the short term.

eehnie wrote:Surely the weakest part of the entire Russian operation in Syria has been the purchase of 4 cargo ships:

9132 tons Dvinitsa-50 http://www.kchf.ru/ship/vspomog/dvinitsa50.htm
7250 tons Vologda-50 http://www.kchf.ru/ship/vspomog/vologda50.htm
4509 tons Kyzyl-60 http://www.kchf.ru/ship/vspomog/kyzyl60.htm
2099 tons Kazan-60 http://www.kchf.ru/ship/vspomog/kazan60.htm

I think it was not necessary for a relatively small operation like this of Syria. With 523 auxilary ships today for many roles, without count these 4 cargo ships, the need of the purchase seems not a real need. These 523 cover multiple roles, but I think Russia would have enough dry cargo transport ships to this operation without a purchase. The closest auxiliary ships of the Russian Navy would be:

14165 tons Yauza Project 550 http://fleetphoto.ru/ship/20520/ (Also in Syria now)

7230 tons Yamal Project 596P http://fleetphoto.ru/ship/17555/
3947 tons Pechora Project 740 http://fleetphoto.ru/ship/14386/
1915 tons Yrghiz Project 572 http://fleetphoto.ru/ship/42760/
1915 tons Bira Project 572 http://fleetphoto.ru/ship/716/
1192 tons VTR-140 Project 773 modified to dry-cargo ship http://fleetphoto.ru/ship/26719/

Without entering in specific armament transport ships (Project 20180/20181, Project 1791, Project 20360 and Project 1823). Also to increase the use of amphibious landing ships would be in the mix to finnish the use of these four ships in the short term.

What would Russian MoD do without your advices i wonder, cease to exist probably.

Majority of auxilary ships is in bad shape, liked we that or not, and they need to operate for a decade more, many of them till replacements come will sail more than that even. Now what is better idea, to save abit existing auxilary ships by buying junk you can discard after or use your in not so great shape ships?

On top of everything Ropucha class here was used out of their projected role, and it was more than clearly visible on them after few trips.

Also paper is one thing, reality totally another, fact that someone listed up 500+ auxilary ships in RuNAV means literally nothing. That list takes everything from floating cranes to harbour tugs, plus what is available in reality? You have few dozen ships that havent sailed in a decade that are still on nomenclature of Navy listed as active, and not only auxilary.

UK used few dozen civilian ships and even tourist cruisers during Fokland crysis, thats how it goes.

Purchasing ships for a particular role is quite sensible, and as Mil pointed out the British commandeered some cruise ships to use as troop transports in the Falklands war in 1982 so it is common practise to get extra resources for a conflict that requires capabilities and capacities you don't normally need in normal operations.

Now that they have some time they can evaluate the designs for the role and decide on new designs for future use in similar operations with a better understanding of what they need and want.

This is a new operation that will take the ships away from normal duties for an extended period of time... it just makes sense to buy new vessels.

Making new vessels would take too long, and using existing vessels means those vessels will need to be replaced with something else...

Militarov wrote:

eehnie wrote:Surely the weakest part of the entire Russian operation in Syria has been the purchase of 4 cargo ships:

9132 tons Dvinitsa-50 http://www.kchf.ru/ship/vspomog/dvinitsa50.htm
7250 tons Vologda-50 http://www.kchf.ru/ship/vspomog/vologda50.htm
4509 tons Kyzyl-60 http://www.kchf.ru/ship/vspomog/kyzyl60.htm
2099 tons Kazan-60 http://www.kchf.ru/ship/vspomog/kazan60.htm

I think it was not necessary for a relatively small operation like this of Syria. With 523 auxilary ships today for many roles, without count these 4 cargo ships, the need of the purchase seems not a real need. These 523 cover multiple roles, but I think Russia would have enough dry cargo transport ships to this operation without a purchase. The closest auxiliary ships of the Russian Navy would be:

14165 tons Yauza Project 550 http://fleetphoto.ru/ship/20520/ (Also in Syria now)

7230 tons Yamal Project 596P http://fleetphoto.ru/ship/17555/
3947 tons Pechora Project 740 http://fleetphoto.ru/ship/14386/
1915 tons Yrghiz Project 572 http://fleetphoto.ru/ship/42760/
1915 tons Bira Project 572 http://fleetphoto.ru/ship/716/
1192 tons VTR-140 Project 773 modified to dry-cargo ship http://fleetphoto.ru/ship/26719/

Without entering in specific armament transport ships (Project 20180/20181, Project 1791, Project 20360 and Project 1823). Also to increase the use of amphibious landing ships would be in the mix to finnish the use of these four ships in the short term.

What would Russian MoD do without your advices i wonder, cease to exist probably.

Majority of auxilary ships is in bad shape, liked we that or not, and they need to operate for a decade more, many of them till replacements come will sail more than that even. Now what is better idea, to save abit existing auxilary ships by buying junk you can discard after or use your in not so great shape ships?

On top of everything Ropucha class here was used out of their projected role, and it was more than clearly visible on them after few trips.

Also paper is one thing, reality totally another, fact that someone listed up 500+ auxilary ships in RuNAV means literally nothing. That list takes everything from floating cranes to harbour tugs, plus what is available in reality? You have few dozen ships that havent sailed in a decade that are still on nomenclature of Navy listed as active, and not only auxilary.

UK used few dozen civilian ships and even tourist cruisers during Fokland crysis, thats how it goes.

Oh, and here you come to the rescue of Russia, just with false statements about how bad is the state of the auxiliary ship fleet of the Russian Navy.

What is what hurted you more. It was because I said that this was the weakest part of the Russian operation in Syria, which in fact shows the overall solidness of the operation, or it was because I said that the even this was not necessary because Russia has ships in use for it?

"Majority of auxiliary ships is in bad shape" comments and blah, blah, blah, is just the weakness I was talking about. This purchase just opens the door to these kind of wrong comments, that of course you are between the first people to use in this supposed defense of Russia.

Just my comment was because of this, and to show that this is not the case, with links where is possible to see recent pictures of every ship, and that the Russian Navy has between its 523 (without these 4) auxiliary ships all the necessary for the operation in Syria, where 23 auxiliary ships are being used at this point.

No, the Russian Navy is not as ineffective to have not the 23 needed auxiliary ships for Syria between their 523. And not, the Russian Navy is not in a situation where a "majority of auxiliary ships is in bad shape".

Russia can shut-up easily the people with arguments like yours. And I expect to do it. I do not advice, I expect that Russia does it because is logical, and is economically positive to get a return from the resale of these ships.

And do not worry very much, because a part of the mentioned projects of armament transport ships are quite new, and there are several more ordered and in production. Enough for future operation like this in the future.

eehnie wrote:Surely the weakest part of the entire Russian operation in Syria has been the purchase of 4 cargo ships:

9132 tons Dvinitsa-50 http://www.kchf.ru/ship/vspomog/dvinitsa50.htm
7250 tons Vologda-50 http://www.kchf.ru/ship/vspomog/vologda50.htm
4509 tons Kyzyl-60 http://www.kchf.ru/ship/vspomog/kyzyl60.htm
2099 tons Kazan-60 http://www.kchf.ru/ship/vspomog/kazan60.htm

I think it was not necessary for a relatively small operation like this of Syria. With 523 auxilary ships today for many roles, without count these 4 cargo ships, the need of the purchase seems not a real need. These 523 cover multiple roles, but I think Russia would have enough dry cargo transport ships to this operation without a purchase. The closest auxiliary ships of the Russian Navy would be:

14165 tons Yauza Project 550 http://fleetphoto.ru/ship/20520/ (Also in Syria now)

7230 tons Yamal Project 596P http://fleetphoto.ru/ship/17555/
3947 tons Pechora Project 740 http://fleetphoto.ru/ship/14386/
1915 tons Yrghiz Project 572 http://fleetphoto.ru/ship/42760/
1915 tons Bira Project 572 http://fleetphoto.ru/ship/716/
1192 tons VTR-140 Project 773 modified to dry-cargo ship http://fleetphoto.ru/ship/26719/

Without entering in specific armament transport ships (Project 20180/20181, Project 1791, Project 20360 and Project 1823). Also to increase the use of amphibious landing ships would be in the mix to finnish the use of these four ships in the short term.

Actualy that was good thing they did, as they need classic cargo potential. They could probably bought even larger classic Ro-Ro or container ships, but i gues that they known better then we .
Those bought ships are in constant action so that is best proof that RuNavy need them.

Yauza is good have good capacity but also she is only ship of class.Yamals are acient (so the cost of operating them are big) others that you have mentioned are just small for seriouse supply mission.

Landing ships that RU navy have have low capacity for operatation of this size. And they didnt even made to be ships to transport huge cargo loads but to land small and ligh batalion. Their resources should be preserved for their role. Also Russia could  by several "classic " cargo jets eg IL 96 or B747. In Syria they would be very usefull as transport price would be reduced in comparation with IL76 and AN 124.

IL and ANs are becoming critical asset for RU, and their resources should also be preserved for missions that only they can do. In Syria you have good airports to land cargo planes so all advantages that IL and AN have, are not relevant in Syria.

And what is problem in this forum when somebody give some critics to Russia? Overal RuNavy is old and in bad shape and we all are aware of that. Auxilary ships are part of that story as well. You can close eyes but that will hide truth for blind only.

Take a look on production date of most of those ships that you have mentioned and all should be clear to you as well. Also auxilary ships have huge rank of task many of them are uselles for Syria mission, becouse of their role or size, other becouse being in bad shape.

eehnie wrote:

Oh, and here you come to the rescue of Russia, just with false statements about how bad is the state of the auxiliary ship fleet of the Russian Navy.

What is what hurted you more. It was because I said that this was the weakest part of the Russian operation in Syria, which in fact shows the overall solidness of the operation, or it was because I said that the even this was not necessary because Russia has ships in use for it?

"Majority of auxiliary ships is in bad shape" comments and blah, blah, blah, is just the weakness I was talking about. This purchase just opens the door to these kind of wrong comments, that of course you are between the first people to use in this supposed defense of Russia.

Just my comment was because of this, and to show that this is not the case, with links where is possible to see recent pictures of every ship, and that the Russian Navy has between its 523 (without these 4) auxiliary ships all the necessary for the operation in Syria, where 23 auxiliary ships are being used at this point.

No, the Russian Navy is not as ineffective to have not the 23 needed auxiliary ships for Syria between their 523. And not, the Russian Navy is not in a situation where a "majority of auxiliary ships is in bad shape".

Russia can shut-up easily the people with arguments like yours. And I expect to do it. I do not advice, I expect that Russia does it because is logical, and is economically positive to get a return from the resale of these ships.

And do not worry very much, because a part of the mentioned projects of armament transport ships are quite new, and there are several more ordered and in production. Enough for  future operation like this in the future.

Ok so now you know better then Ru Navy comanders if Ru navy need those ships or have some better assets?

How many classic cargo ships Ru navy have in that 523 au ships?

And how many of them could be taken from their daily missions and be sent to Syria for years?

Who will do their job during this Syrian campain?

How many of them are big enought to be usefull in supplying Syria mission?

Are you aware that Russia have to supply not only its forces in Syria, but SAA as well. You plan to supply several hundred thousands strong forces armed with thousands of tanks IFV and arty guns, hundreds of fighters and helicopters with 1000tonn ships that can make one trip per month ( or even less?)

Harbor tugs, Tenders, salvage and repair ships, Cranes,Hydrographic ships, Electronic Surveillance ship, training ships, specialized ships for missiles suplying, and all harbor sized ships and boats ... Those ships are majority of auxilarry fleet, and all of them are useless is Syria.

Ru Navy didnt have enought of cargo potential so they bought several ship to increase it. End of story.


And regarding resale, now there is huge number of ships for sale, as whole ship cargo industy is in huge crise and lot of huge companies are in bankrupcy or on brink of it. So now it is time for buy not for sell ships as resale prices are miserable. Russia could probly take advantage of that and buy several more, more modern and bigger ships. To increase its cargo potential as it plan to have bigger role in world politics.

GarryB wrote:Purchasing ships for a particular role is quite sensible, and as Mil pointed out the British commandeered some cruise ships to use as troop transports in the Falklands war in 1982 so it is common practise to get extra resources for a conflict that requires capabilities and capacities you don't normally need in normal operations.

Now that they have some time they can evaluate the designs for the role and decide on new designs for future use in similar operations with a better understanding of what they need and want.

This is a new operation that will take the ships away from normal duties for an extended period of time... it just makes sense to buy new vessels.

Making new vessels would take too long, and using existing vessels means those vessels will need to be replaced with something else...

Did you see somewhere 500 auxiliary ships in the UK Navy? What the UK does is good because they do it?

This was also a weakness of the UK Navy. Sorry. They did it because they had not the ships, but the Russian Navy is stronger, and was not in need of it.

eehnie wrote:

Militarov wrote:

eehnie wrote:Surely the weakest part of the entire Russian operation in Syria has been the purchase of 4 cargo ships:

9132 tons Dvinitsa-50 http://www.kchf.ru/ship/vspomog/dvinitsa50.htm
7250 tons Vologda-50 http://www.kchf.ru/ship/vspomog/vologda50.htm
4509 tons Kyzyl-60 http://www.kchf.ru/ship/vspomog/kyzyl60.htm
2099 tons Kazan-60 http://www.kchf.ru/ship/vspomog/kazan60.htm

I think it was not necessary for a relatively small operation like this of Syria. With 523 auxilary ships today for many roles, without count these 4 cargo ships, the need of the purchase seems not a real need. These 523 cover multiple roles, but I think Russia would have enough dry cargo transport ships to this operation without a purchase. The closest auxiliary ships of the Russian Navy would be:

14165 tons Yauza Project 550 http://fleetphoto.ru/ship/20520/ (Also in Syria now)

7230 tons Yamal Project 596P http://fleetphoto.ru/ship/17555/
3947 tons Pechora Project 740 http://fleetphoto.ru/ship/14386/
1915 tons Yrghiz Project 572 http://fleetphoto.ru/ship/42760/
1915 tons Bira Project 572 http://fleetphoto.ru/ship/716/
1192 tons VTR-140 Project 773 modified to dry-cargo ship http://fleetphoto.ru/ship/26719/

Without entering in specific armament transport ships (Project 20180/20181, Project 1791, Project 20360 and Project 1823). Also to increase the use of amphibious landing ships would be in the mix to finnish the use of these four ships in the short term.

What would Russian MoD do without your advices i wonder, cease to exist probably.

Majority of auxilary ships is in bad shape, liked we that or not, and they need to operate for a decade more, many of them till replacements come will sail more than that even. Now what is better idea, to save abit existing auxilary ships by buying junk you can discard after or use your in not so great shape ships?

On top of everything Ropucha class here was used out of their projected role, and it was more than clearly visible on them after few trips.

Also paper is one thing, reality totally another, fact that someone listed up 500+ auxilary ships in RuNAV means literally nothing. That list takes everything from floating cranes to harbour tugs, plus what is available in reality? You have few dozen ships that havent sailed in a decade that are still on nomenclature of Navy listed as active, and not only auxilary.

UK used few dozen civilian ships and even tourist cruisers during Fokland crysis, thats how it goes.

Oh, and here you come to the rescue of Russia, just with false statements about how bad is the state of the auxiliary ship fleet of the Russian Navy.

What is what hurted you more. It was because I said that this was the weakest part of the Russian operation in Syria, which in fact shows the overall solidness of the operation, or it was because I said that the even this was not necessary because Russia has ships in use for it?

"Majority of auxiliary ships is in bad shape" comments and blah, blah, blah, is just the weakness I was talking about. This purchase just opens the door to these kind of wrong comments, that of course you are between the first people to use in this supposed defense of Russia.

Just my comment was because of this, and to show that this is not the case, with links where is possible to see recent pictures of every ship, and that the Russian Navy has between its 523 (without these 4) auxiliary ships all the necessary for the operation in Syria, where 23 auxiliary ships are being used at this point.

No, the Russian Navy is not as ineffective to have not the 23 needed auxiliary ships for Syria between their 523. And not, the Russian Navy is not in a situation where a "majority of auxiliary ships is in bad shape".

Russia can shut-up easily the people with arguments like yours. And I expect to do it. I do not advice, I expect that Russia does it because is logical, and is economically positive to get a return from the resale of these ships.

And do not worry very much, because a part of the mentioned projects of armament transport ships are quite new, and there are several more ordered and in production. Enough for  future operation like this in the future.

I am not sure are you even aware how tiny this Syrian operation is on global scale. Silly tiny port Bar in Montenegro pulls though it more load in a month than Russians transported till this moment by both air and sea for all this time.

Certain conflicts in last 3 decades engaged as much as 300 transport and tanker ships, scale of which was HUGE. And you are painting us here with "solidness" of operations? Go away seriously your statements are getting more retarded by each day.

And yes, majority of auxilary ships are in sorry state, let alone fact majority of the designs are from 70s and 80s which were built with totally different idea than today. Half dry cargo, half tanker capable ocean going support ships and similar. Roll-on/roll-off ships of major size also basically do not exist and are crucial.

Also "people like you", which people? People that like to look at things as they are? Educated people?

Or people like you that make 5 posts a week:

"I THINK RUSSIA SHOULD SEND TO SYRIA 50.000 TANKS AND MOABS TO SHOW HOW ***** WE ARE".