Russian Navy: Status & News #3

GarryB wrote:I don't understand your problem Eehnie...

A new requirement for transport ships was created by operations in Syria and the Russian Navy bought some ships to do the job.

They were not new ships but then they don't need to be for this sort of mission.

The fact that they bought some ships to do a job rather than pulled some old ships out of mothballs for the role just shows some planning and thinking was done and they obviously went for a cheaper more practical option.

It is not just old destroyers that need replacing in the Russian navy and a lot of old on the books transport types are equally in need of decomissioning.

Deciding what to scrap is not an easy choice as you need to know what future requirements will be.

Building new ships for this job is not practical because the time it would take to design and build.

Experience with these types might give them an idea of what sort of new vessel type might be the most useful, but these vessels will be operable long enough to do the job but not here forever and certainly costing so much that there is no money left for new types.

Sounds like a great decision to me.

The bolded parts are something that you have to give evidence of. Even the first bolded part contradicts the evidence provided (check the links about the Akademik Kovalev, VTR-79 and Viktor Cherokov ships). And the same with the second bolded part, because in the links provided, there is evidence with pictures that almost all the ships mentioned have been navigating recently (in data near the begin of the operation of Syria or even after it), and not in "mothballs" (the problem for Russia was more in the lack of maintenance than to enlarge the life of the ships keeping them in "mothballs".

You want to put enphasis in the minor critizism about the purchase, doing a far bigger critizism about lack of capability. A critizism without support in nothing but your opinion.

The problem is that you have to prove the lack of capability to be an accepted argument, and you are doing not.

In this concrete case, you have to prove that what can be in the second box (without the Yauza) is of lower capability than what is in the first box, at least in a moment of the continuous timeline of the operation of Syria, since 2015. And you are doing not it.

These are the data about the four ships purchased for the opeartion in Syria:

9132 tons Dvinitsa-50 http://fleetphoto.ru/ship/54458/
7250 tons Vologda-50 http://fleetphoto.ru/ship/54485/
4509 tons Kyzyl-60 http://fleetphoto.ru/ship/55363/
2099 tons Kazan-60 http://fleetphoto.ru/ship/16128/

22990 tons Total

These are the potential alternatives present in the Russian Navy today and in the short term:

14165 tons Yauza Project 550 http://fleetphoto.ru/ship/20520/ (Used in Syria now for the same role, with a number of amphibious landing ships)

7230 tons Yamal Project 596P http://fleetphoto.ru/ship/17555/
6300 tons Akademik Kovalev Project 20180/20181 http://fleetphoto.ru/ship/42639/
4473 tons Daugaba Project 1791 http://fleetphoto.ru/ship/33930/
3947 tons Pechora Project 740 http://fleetphoto.ru/ship/14386/
1985 tons VTR-79 Project 20360 http://fleetphoto.ru/ship/3205/
1985 tons Viktor Cherokov Project 20360 http://fleetphoto.ru/ship/60772/
1915 tons Yrghiz Project 572 http://fleetphoto.ru/ship/42760/
1915 tons Bira Project 572 http://fleetphoto.ru/ship/716/
1243 tons VTR-139 Project 1807 modified to armament transport ship http://fleetphoto.ru/ship/35262/
1192 tons VTR-140 Project 773 modified to dry-cargo ship http://fleetphoto.ru/ship/26719/

6300 tons Akademik Makeev Project 20180/20181 http://fleetphoto.ru/ship/59962/ (Under construction, expected by 2018)
2500 tons ?????? Project 20360 http://russianships.info/eng/support/project_20360.htm (Under construction expected by 2019)
2500 tons ?????? Project 20360 http://russianships.info/eng/support/project_20360.htm (Under construction expected by 2020)

6000 tons Ivan Gren Project 11711 http://fleetphoto.ru/ship/25277/ Landing ship, combat ship, not auxiliary (Under construction, expected by 2017)
6000 tons Pyotr Morgunov Project 11711 http://fleetphoto.ru/ship/59957/ Landing ship, combat ship, not auxiliary (Under construction, expected by 2018)
4012 tons Oslyabya Project 775 http://fleetphoto.ru/ship/17125/ Landing ship, combat ship, not auxiliary (Under reparation, expected by 2017?)
4012 tons Konstantin Olshanskiy Project 775 http://fleetphoto.ru/ship/4752/ Landing ship, combat ship, not auxiliary (Captured to Ukraine, potential introduction)

32185 tons Total 2nd group (auxiliary ships active out of Syria)
11300 tons Total 3rd group (future auxiliary ships available in the short term)
20024 tons Total 4th group (future amphibious ships available in the short term)
63509 tons Total 2nd+3rd+4th

Ships marked with the same color, different of black, are of almost the same size.

Note that the ships of the first box (purchased for the operation in Syria) seems to be in worse condition.

TheArmenian wrote:

PapaDragon wrote:

TheArmenian wrote:..............
This is the second ship of the project 18280.
It will enter service before end 2017 together with the Admiral Gorshkov frigate and the supply ship Elbrus, all built at the same shipyard.
The project 20385 Gremyashy corvettes should be launched during this summer too.

I will let you guess what ships will be laid down at Severnaya later on this year.

OK, you know I suck at naval topics and I am curious as hell. So which on will be laid down next???

Your guess is as good (or bad) as mine.

My guess:
One more Project 18280 spy ship will be laid down (they are planning to have 4 of these ships) plus one Project 20386 (Derzky) class frigate.
When the third Gorshkov class is launched towards the end of the year, they will lay down the first super-Gorshkov. The Navy will suffice itself with 4 Gorshkovs only. Super-Gorshkov is what they are looking forward to.

But I could be wrong

Wait, the Super-Gorshkov is confirmed??
Any details???
My money would be on Derzky..... wait, Frigate, isn't Derzky a Corvette??

AlfaT8 wrote:

TheArmenian wrote:

PapaDragon wrote:

TheArmenian wrote:..............
This is the second ship of the project 18280.
It will enter service before end 2017 together with the Admiral Gorshkov frigate and the supply ship Elbrus, all built at the same shipyard.
The project 20385 Gremyashy corvettes should be launched during this summer too.

I will let you guess what ships will be laid down at Severnaya later on this year.

OK, you know I suck at naval topics and I am curious as hell. So which on will be laid down next???

Your guess is as good (or bad) as mine.

My guess:
One more Project 18280 spy ship will be laid down (they are planning to have 4 of these ships) plus one Project 20386 (Derzky) class frigate.
When the third Gorshkov class is launched towards the end of the year, they will lay down the first super-Gorshkov. The Navy will suffice itself with 4 Gorshkovs only. Super-Gorshkov is what they are looking forward to.

But I could be wrong

Wait, the Super-Gorshkov is confirmed??
Any details???
My money would be on Derzky..... wait, Frigate, isn't Derzky a Corvette??

it's 3.5K Tons it's a corvette only in name.

Wait, the Super-Gorshkov is confirmed??
Any details???
My money would be on Derzky..... wait, Frigate, isn't Derzky a Corvette??

Actually, there is lot of chances that super gorshkov is the next "destroyer" and that they don't produce any 21956 or lider. That's something europeans navy are doing, building top frigates and no more destroyers that are more costly to operate.

PapaDragon wrote:
Another Derzki would be excellent.

If they are really going with Super Gorshkov then it would definitely put Lider class on the back burner. Makes sense though. Super Gorshkov would fill that role pretty well.

And combination of Derzki and couple of Karakurts would act as sort of replacement for standard Gorshkov. Derzki primarily deals with aircraft and subs while Karakurts have supersonic anti-ship weapons and LACMs.  

Since they seem to have sorted out turbine issues they no longer need nuclear destroyers as urgently as before. I would bet they will wait until they see how upgraded Nakhimonov performs before they fully commit to new nuclear destroyer.

Agreed, although i still don't consider LIDER a destroyer.

Ok, i think.

Lets be honest, the shipyards aren't even close to ready for Lider.
No doubt about Nakhimonov.

AlfaT8 wrote:

PapaDragon wrote:
.

Lets be honest, the shipyards aren't even close to ready for Lider.

I think you are listening too much to a collection of pessimists, nay-sayers, Russia-haters and trolls.

Which part of a Leader is Russia is not even close to ready?
The nuclear propulsion system? .... well, they are building nuclear subs and icebrakers
The armament & electronic systems?......well, they are upgrading the Nakhimov, aren't they?
You mean the hull? .....you really think Russian shipyards cannot build a 15000 T ship's hull?

And please don't bring the delays that plagued a few classes of ships. That has nothing to do with shipyard capability.

Russia is not a third world country. Russian shipyards can start building a Lider right now if:
- The high command decides that such a ship is necessary to fulfill the Navy's objectives
- They commit finances to build it

PapaDragon wrote:

TheArmenian wrote:..............

I will let you guess what ships will be laid down at Severnaya later on this year.

OK, you know I suck at naval topics and I am curious as hell. So which on will be laid down next???

Let me break this to you:

The hot topics of the near future will be about naval issues.

The future of the Russian land forces are pretty much known (Armata, Koalitsya, Kurganets etc.)
The future of the VKS is also predictable (PAK-FA, Tu-160M, S-500 etc.) with PAK-DA being the wild card.

With the prevailing geopolitical situation over the past years, Russia was being besieged and pressured by the west on the very borders of the country. As we speak, Russia pretty much stalled this onslaught and has made a breakthrough by taking the fight elsewhere (Syria).
I have no doubt about it, Russia will do everything to take the conflict(s) away from its borders. To do that, a capable Navy is a must.

As I listed in a post on the previous page, a whole navy is being put together. There is more to come.
Admiral Korolyev knows what he is doing, I believ this is his plan:

1st phase:
Build up the defenses of the shores and seas (Build large numbers of Karakurts, Buyans, minesweepers etc.)
Upgrade the strategic component (Build Borei class submarines)
Maintain sea denial capability (modernize Oscars and Akulas and build new Yasens)
Upgrade ability to launch land strikes (Kalibr)

2nd phase:
Upgrade sea denial capabilities (Introduce Zircon)
Increase number of long distance patrols (ships and subs)
Improve blue water capabilities (Build Gorshkov successors, Build larger 20386 instead of 20380 etc.)
Introduce AIP propulsion system (Improved Lada class)
Upgrade intervention capabilities (Build larger landing ship such as Lavina or similar)

3rd phase:
Switch from sea-denial to sea control (build aircraft carriers and Liders)
Introduce 5th generation subs

Note that there is no clear cut transition from phase to phase.
Currently we are deep in phase 1 and slowly moving into phase 2
If all goes well, phase 3 implementation may begin during 2nd half of the next decade

Also note that the Soviet Union moved into phase 3 levels only during the late eighties just before its collapse.

Isos wrote:

Wait, the Super-Gorshkov is confirmed??
Any details???
My money would be on Derzky..... wait, Frigate, isn't Derzky a Corvette??

Actually, there is lot of chances that super gorshkov is the next "destroyer" and that they don't produce any 21956 or lider. That's something europeans navy are doing, building top frigates and no more destroyers that are more costly to operate.

The move from the Project 22350 (Gorshkov) to the Project 22350M (super-Gorshkov) is not a big change. It is a new variant to improve the capabilities of the ships to work in the same role. Both are ships around 5000 tons (the second with 1000 tons more than the first). Both are frigates.

The project 21956 is a ship of around 10000 tons, more in line with the classic concept of destroyer, and the Project 23560 (Lider) is a ship of around 15000 tons, more in line with the classic concept of cruiser.

The difference of weight means a clear difference in capabilities, a clear difference in fire-power. The Project 22350M (super-Gorshkov) is far of the capabilities that should have modern ships designed under the same view but with this difference in size.

In fact Russia has been keeping ships of the three types after 25 reducing its fleet and selecting the best combination of ships to keep. Why should this change now? There is not reason to think it really. Russia needs a number of ships and a combination of capabilities that makes likely to see ships of the three types in the Russian Navy like until now (of these projects, while we see not something else). And Russia is perfectly capable to build the first unit of them by 2025. Even Russia.

Russia will not be following what other weaker navies are doing. Russia is in a position, where is able to find its own way, like has been doing until now.

When the people argues against the destroyers and the cruisers, it seems like if it would not be possible to put inside a ship of around 10000 tons or 15000 tons the necessary to make the ships a modern ship in terms of armament or in terms of navigation. And this is totally wrong. It is perfectly possible to apply the modern criteria designing ships to the concepts of destroyer and cruiser, making also these concepts to evolve in to ships of vanguard.

The key point in the side of the continuation for these ships, is not really in technological limitations or evolution, like can be the case of the big manned maritime patrol ships vs future unmanned aircrafts. The key point is in the need that Russia can have or not of these ships. In my view, the fact that after 25 years of reduction of the fleet and of selection of the best combination of ships to keep, Russia still has today destroyers, cruisers and aircraft carriers between the selected ships, proves that Russia has a need of some destroyer, some cruiser and some aircraft carrier.

TheArmenian wrote:

AlfaT8 wrote:

PapaDragon wrote:
.

Lets be honest, the shipyards aren't even close to ready for Lider.

I think you are listening too much to a collection of pessimists, nay-sayers, Russia-haters and trolls.

Which part of a Leader is Russia is not even close to ready?
The nuclear propulsion system? .... well, they are building nuclear subs and icebrakers
The armament & electronic systems?......well, they are upgrading the Nakhimov, aren't they?
You mean the hull? .....you really think Russian shipyards cannot build a 15000 T ship's hull?

And please don't bring the delays that plagued a few classes of ships. That has nothing to do with shipyard capability.

Russia is not a third world country. Russian shipyards can start building a Lider right now if:
- The high command decides that such a ship is necessary to fulfill the Navy's objectives
- They commit finances to build it

Nah, i am genuinely a glass half empty kinda guy.

Nuclear propulsion is the one area which i have absolute confidence in.
True, but Nakhimov hasn't even entered trails yet, and looking at Goshkov i hope it doesn't take to long.
Some statements put it closer to 20000T, that said i will need to wait and see, and hope that Amur isn't put in charge of it.

Why not, it has everything to do with shipyard capabilities.

At what pace is the question.

@ AlphaT8

Amur can not build a large ship. Just doesn't have the space. They cannot build anything larger than a 20380 at the moment.
The most likely candidate (and I could be wrong) to build a Leader size ship is Baltisky shipyard where the nuclear powered Kirov battle-cruisers and nuclear powered ice-breakers were built (and are currently being built). That shipyard also built the rear sections of the Mistral amphibious ships.

@ Papadragon

Just wanted to add  that nothing is carved in stone in military planning/building. Objectives, priorities and plans are subject to change depending on geopolitical, economic and other reasons.
Regarding the super Gorshkov,we can only speculate at the moment. Your theory sounds realistic.
I would speculate that the super-Gorshkov will carry only one helicopter but have also some high-tech UAVs for signaling, relay, electronic surveillance, electronic warfare etc.

In other news:

The frigate Admiral Essen is now in Limassol (Cyprus) on her way to the Black Sea.

harsh economic situation, bad ship construction, and very slow induction =all eating money means new projects are getting postponed, super-gorshkov only means there will be no Leader class destroyer ! super gorshkov will mount heavier AA missiles more uksk and thats that.

Rmf wrote:harsh economic situation,  bad ship construction, and very slow induction =all eating money means new projects are getting postponed, super-gorshkov only means there will be no Leader class destroyer ! super gorshkov will mount heavier AA missiles more uksk and thats that.

Th super-Gorshkov is a variant of 5500 tons of a ship of 4500 tons (Gorshkov). Enough to rule out ships of 10000 or 15000 tons?

Based on what?

After 25 years of reduction of the fleet and of selection of the best ships from the Sovietic fleet Russia continues having destroyers, cruisers and aircraft carriers. And these ships continue being in the top of the Russian Navy. If Russia would consider them out of interest, would not be keeping them.

eehnie wrote:

Rmf wrote:harsh economic situation,  bad ship construction, and very slow induction =all eating money means new projects are getting postponed, super-gorshkov only means there will be no Leader class destroyer ! super gorshkov will mount heavier AA missiles more uksk and thats that.

Th super-Gorshkov is a variant of 5500 tons of a ship of 4500 tons (Gorshkov). Enough to rule out ships of 10000 or 15000 tons?

Based on what?

After 25 years of reduction of the fleet and of selection of the best ships from the Sovietic fleet Russia continues having destroyers, cruisers and aircraft carriers. And these ships continue being in the top of the Russian Navy. If Russia would consider them out of interest, would not be keeping them.

Well, it's not about the weight. Weight of navies were nice numbers for WW2 to give you an idea of the power of the navies.  It's more because the systems are smaller and smaller. They already fit UKSK to 800 tons ships. Before a bigger ship could have bigger guns, bigger missiles a frigate smaller and a corvette much more smaller. Specially for radars.

A frigate like gorshkov can accomodate the best technologies available while a destroyer or a cruiser will have the same but in bigger numbers.

But then the questions is : is it better to have 2 smaller ships with X missiles on it or a single bigger ship with 2*X missiles ? Idem for the price, a gorshkov is around 350 million $ while a destroyer will be 500-600 million $.

I would chose two smaller ships as they can cover 2 times greater area than a single destroyer and in case one of them is destroyer you still have another.

They kept the big soviets ships because they are complete (air defence, anti ship missile, big gun ...) Soviet frigates were totaly underarmed for a potential war against the >60 US cruisers. But now a gorshkov with 16 oniks can destroy easily any US destroyer. A squadron of 6 karakurts helped with the aviation's IL-38 and Su-30 can detect and destroy them too.

Isos wrote:

eehnie wrote:

Rmf wrote:harsh economic situation,  bad ship construction, and very slow induction =all eating money means new projects are getting postponed, super-gorshkov only means there will be no Leader class destroyer ! super gorshkov will mount heavier AA missiles more uksk and thats that.

Th super-Gorshkov is a variant of 5500 tons of a ship of 4500 tons (Gorshkov). Enough to rule out ships of 10000 or 15000 tons?

Based on what?

After 25 years of reduction of the fleet and of selection of the best ships from the Sovietic fleet Russia continues having destroyers, cruisers and aircraft carriers. And these ships continue being in the top of the Russian Navy. If Russia would consider them out of interest, would not be keeping them.

Well, it's not about the weight. Weight of navies were nice numbers for WW2 to give you an idea of the power of the navies.  It's more because the systems are smaller and smaller. They already fit UKSK to 800 tons ships. Before a bigger ship could have bigger guns, bigger missiles a frigate smaller and a corvette much more smaller. Specially for radars.

A frigate like gorshkov can accomodate the best technologies available while a destroyer or a cruiser will have the same but in bigger numbers.

But then the questions is : is it better to have 2 smaller ships with X missiles on it or a single bigger ship with 2*X missiles ? Idem for the price, a gorshkov is around 350 million $ while a destroyer will be 500-600 million $.

I would chose two smaller ships as they can cover 2 times greater area than a single destroyer and in case one of them is destroyer you still have another.

They kept the big soviets ships because they are complete (air defence, anti ship missile, big gun ...) Soviet frigates were totaly underarmed for a potential war against the >60 US cruisers. But now a gorshkov with 16 oniks can destroy easily any US destroyer. A squadron of 6 karakurts helped with the aviation's IL-38 and Su-30 can detect and destroy them too.

Obviously there is a difference in the power by the time. It is possible to see a modern ship of 5000 tons more powerful than an older ship of 10000 tons, but modern concepts can be applied to the ships of 10000 tons and of 15000 tons, like for the ships of 5000 tons. And modern ships of 10000 or 15000 tons keep the advantage in power.

Bigger platforms allow bigger weapons. This is key in the development of longer range missiles (Surface-Surface, including anti-ships, and Surface-Air). Do not forget that on land there are silo based weapons because the land mobile platforms are not enough to manage them.

At same time there is an adavantage of bigger ships in the refered to the navigation in blue waters.

Russia renounced not until now to the use of veteran ships of these cathegories (destroyer, cruiser and aircraft carrier). Less likely to see Russia renouncing to have modern ships of these cathegories in the future. It is unlikely that Russia limits the use of sea weapons to the capabilities of ships of 5000 tons, the current sea weapons and the sea weapons to come.

Isos wrote:They kept the big soviets ships because they are complete (air defence, anti ship missile, big gun ...) Soviet frigates were totaly underarmed for a potential war against the >60 US cruisers. But now a gorshkov with 16 oniks can destroy easily any US destroyer. A squadron of 6 karakurts helped with the aviation's IL-38 and Su-30 can detect and destroy them too.

There's only a few dozen Il-38s and Su-30s. And the US destroyers (and remaining cruisers) are as strong and as numerous as ever. Hell right now you have the likes of ROK and Japan being capable to contain Russia's presence in the Pacific pretty well. Pumping out proper destroyers and SSKs like there's no tomorrow. I wouldn't be so fast in thinking that fast attack crafts and corvettes can be the answer here. Neither is a half-finished heavy frigate (barely destroyer material by AB standards) sitting in the North Sea a serious solution to Russia's naval problems.

KiloGolf wrote:

Isos wrote:They kept the big soviets ships because they are complete (air defence, anti ship missile, big gun ...) Soviet frigates were totaly underarmed for a potential war against the >60 US cruisers. But now a gorshkov with 16 oniks can destroy easily any US destroyer. A squadron of 6 karakurts helped with the aviation's IL-38 and Su-30 can detect and destroy them too.

There's only a few dozen Il-38s and Su-30s. And the US destroyers (and remaining cruisers) are as strong and as numerous as ever. Hell right now you have the likes of ROK and Japan being capable to contain Russia's presence in the Pacific pretty well. Pumping out proper destroyers and SSKs like there's no tomorrow. I wouldn't be so fast in thinking that fast attack crafts and corvettes can be the answer here. Neither is a half-finished heavy frigate (barely destroyer material by AB standards) sitting in the North Sea a serious solution to Russia's naval problems.

Oniks has a range of around 500 km so the lunch plateform is not important. The navy trying to make a blocus against Russia won't last long time even today when they haven't ultra modern ships.

Fast Attack Aircraft needed to be fast because the missile on them had small range. A karakurt with its small rcs can hide behind an island and wait that a plane detect them and then lunch its missile. Modern war is different from what we have seen. With the standardization, VLS systems and long range missiles tactics are totaly different, no need to cross the T anymore.

Russia has also an airforce. Su-30/35, A-50, future mig-35 can search for destroyers and F-15's from 400 KM easily ... Il-38 will search for subs and detect enemy radar signals. All these plateforms can coordinate an Attack and destroy any formation in 5 min.

Even a steregoutchiy can have 16 Redut missile providing defence against airborn threats.

Japan had lot of SSK in WW2, that didn't helped them to win even if it's the most dangerous thing today in/on the sea.

Bigger platforms allow bigger weapons. This is key in the development of longer range missiles (Surface-Surface, including anti-ships, and Surface-Air). Do not forget that on land there are silo based weapons because the land mobile platforms are not enough to manage them.

No more. Futur and actual missiles have to be lunched from VLS. There won't be new duos like Kirov/P-700. Every ship will have UKSK and oniks or Zircon. Imagine an Ossa class patrol boat equiped with 8 granit or S-300 >> That's the power of a Karakurt or a future Steregoushchy (8 oniks plus 16 redut).

They allow more weapons however.

At same time there is an adavantage of bigger ships in the refered to the navigation in blue waters.

For this I agree but it related to the strategy of the country. Till today Russia want to secure its border and have a possibility to Attack deep in it's neighbours with cruise missiles and tactical bombers. A blue navy cost lot of money. Having a strong Brown/green navy and a strong blue navy is just imossible, even USSR and USA couldn't have it.

Isos wrote:

KiloGolf wrote:

Isos wrote:They kept the big soviets ships because they are complete (air defence, anti ship missile, big gun ...) Soviet frigates were totaly underarmed for a potential war against the >60 US cruisers. But now a gorshkov with 16 oniks can destroy easily any US destroyer. A squadron of 6 karakurts helped with the aviation's IL-38 and Su-30 can detect and destroy them too.

There's only a few dozen Il-38s and Su-30s. And the US destroyers (and remaining cruisers) are as strong and as numerous as ever. Hell right now you have the likes of ROK and Japan being capable to contain Russia's presence in the Pacific pretty well. Pumping out proper destroyers and SSKs like there's no tomorrow. I wouldn't be so fast in thinking that fast attack crafts and corvettes can be the answer here. Neither is a half-finished heavy frigate (barely destroyer material by AB standards) sitting in the North Sea a serious solution to Russia's naval problems.

Oniks has a range of around 500 km so the lunch plateform is not important. The navy trying to make a blocus against Russia won't last long time even today when they haven't ultra modern ships.

Fast Attack Aircraft needed to be fast because the missile on them had small range. A karakurt with its small rcs can hide behind an island and wait that a plane detect them and then lunch its missile. Modern war is different from what we have seen. With the standardization, VLS systems and long range missiles tactics are totaly different, no need to cross the T anymore.

Russia has also an airforce. Su-30/35, A-50, future mig-35 can search for destroyers and F-15's from 400 KM easily ... Il-38 will search for subs and detect enemy radar signals. All these plateforms can coordinate an Attack and destroy any formation in 5 min.

Even a steregoutchiy can have 16 Redut missile providing defence against airborn threats.

Japan had lot of SSK in WW2, that didn't helped them to win even if it's the most dangerous thing today in/on the sea.

On the high seas both fast attack crafts and corvettes/light frigates are toast. This is where the big boys operate and reign supreme. I don't think ROK or Japan can impose a full blockade, they'd never want that anyway. But they can definitely bully small ships like that just by coming close to them and e.g. switching on their Aegis, mock ram them and so on. Japan and ROK can keep and maintain their sea lanes open irrespectively of Russia's policies and potential wishes, as they lack the tools to be more than a brown water navy in the region (nuclear deterrent aside).

KiloGolf wrote:

On the high seas both fast attack crafts and corvettes and light frigates are toast. This is where the big boys operate and reign supreme. I don't think ROK or Japan can impose a full blockade, they'd never want that anyway. But they can definitely bully small ships like that just by coming close to them and e.g. switching on their Aegis, mock ram them and so on. Japan and ROK can keep and maintain their sea lanes open irrespectively of Russia's policies and potential wishes, as they lack the tools to be more than a brown water navy in the region (nuclear deterrent aside).

Exactly what shipping lanes you talk about?


By checking the map the most important shipping lanes are on the Chinese side, and they have to be able to keep them open against China.

Singular_Transform wrote:

KiloGolf wrote:

On the high seas both fast attack crafts and corvettes and light frigates are toast. This is where the big boys operate and reign supreme. I don't think ROK or Japan can impose a full blockade, they'd never want that anyway. But they can definitely bully small ships like that just by coming close to them and e.g. switching on their Aegis, mock ram them and so on. Japan and ROK can keep and maintain their sea lanes open irrespectively of Russia's policies and potential wishes, as they lack the tools to be more than a brown water navy in the region (nuclear deterrent aside).

Exactly what shipping lanes you talk about?


By checking the map the most important shipping lanes are on the Chinese side, and they have to be able to keep them open against China.

KiloGolf wrote:

Singular_Transform wrote:

KiloGolf wrote:

On the high seas both fast attack crafts and corvettes and light frigates are toast. This is where the big boys operate and reign supreme. I don't think ROK or Japan can impose a full blockade, they'd never want that anyway. But they can definitely bully small ships like that just by coming close to them and e.g. switching on their Aegis, mock ram them and so on. Japan and ROK can keep and maintain their sea lanes open irrespectively of Russia's policies and potential wishes, as they lack the tools to be more than a brown water navy in the region (nuclear deterrent aside).

Exactly what shipping lanes you talk about?


By checking the map the most important shipping lanes are on the Chinese side, and they have to be able to keep them open against China.

Russia using the trans-syberian railways for transport in russia, and to china/north korea.
https://www.europeanrailwayreview.com/27865/rail-industry-news/russian-railways-freight-services-europe-china/

113 million tonnes volume in 2015.
5.65 TEU minimum. (TEU calculate volume, not mass)

eehnie wrote:

Rmf wrote:harsh economic situation,  bad ship construction, and very slow induction =all eating money means new projects are getting postponed, super-gorshkov only means there will be no Leader class destroyer ! super gorshkov will mount heavier AA missiles more uksk and thats that.

Th super-Gorshkov is a variant of 5500 tons of a ship of 4500 tons (Gorshkov). Enough to rule out ships of 10000 or 15000 tons?

Based on what?

After 25 years of reduction of the fleet and of selection of the best ships from the Sovietic fleet Russia continues having destroyers, cruisers and aircraft carriers. And these ships continue being in the top of the Russian Navy. If Russia would consider them out of interest, would not be keeping them.

yes , russia cant make them anymore for now , no money... plan is then that enlarged gorshkov will have larger missiles from s-300pmu and s-400, not only medium ranged, problematic, redut.
leader will be built around s-500 so it is a long way off.

Rmf wrote:

eehnie wrote:

Rmf wrote:harsh economic situation,  bad ship construction, and very slow induction =all eating money means new projects are getting postponed, super-gorshkov only means there will be no Leader class destroyer ! super gorshkov will mount heavier AA missiles more uksk and thats that.

Th super-Gorshkov is a variant of 5500 tons of a ship of 4500 tons (Gorshkov). Enough to rule out ships of 10000 or 15000 tons?

Based on what?

After 25 years of reduction of the fleet and of selection of the best ships from the Sovietic fleet Russia continues having destroyers, cruisers and aircraft carriers. And these ships continue being in the top of the Russian Navy. If Russia would consider them out of interest, would not be keeping them.

yes , russia cant make them anymore for now , no money... plan is then that enlarged gorshkov will have larger missiles from s-300pmu and s-400, not only medium ranged, problematic, redut.
leader will be built around s-500 so it is a long way off.

Where did you see that they will replace redut with the naval S-300/400 ? I don't think there is space for that.