Russian Navy: Status & News #3

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.

It is not realy about money or capability, more about reason to make big and shine navy.

Japan,China or USA doesn't has choice, but to invest huge money into the navyes , or risk to loose important transport routes.

But all russia transport route are inland, means they don!t need navy to protect them.

All use of the navy is just litoral protection, or to be capable to cut the other countries shipping lanes.

KiloGolf, are you implying that it's in any way realistic for the Russian Pacific Fleet 1:1 to be as powerful as the ROK and Japanese navies combined... as a blue water force? That kind of scenario is totally unrealistic to begin with. Japan's population is over 100 million, it's mainly a sea power, it's an island and obviously all of its forces are in the Pacific. Russian Pacific Fleet can't and doesn't need to match that 1:1.  

They are China's "problem" anyway, which China is "handling" well, btw: 24 Type 055s/052Ds and 052Cs by the end 2020 + 10 upgraded Sovremenny-type of vessels and that number is atleast going to double by 2030.

(I'm not sure even sure low long (South-)Korea is going to remain in aligment with the Empire, considering the rise of the Middle Kingdom, as the Chinese economic influence in the region is only going to grow and Korea is a natural ally/client of China... although it might take some time. But that is another topic...)

So overall, South Korea and Japan are mainly sea and trading powers anyway, Russia is not. And most of Russia naval power is based in Europe, I don't see how any of that is going to change, or why it should change.

Also, it's not like Russia doesn't have any blue water capabilities in the region, wtf. They have cruisers, destroyers and nuclear submarines. They just need to replace all of those vessels by the mid-2030s, that's it. I think its realistic that the Russian Pacific fleet could be roughly as capable as the ROK Navy going forward, but Japan!? Just totally unrealistic and unnecessary all around.

Indeed. I'm not an expert on Japanese Navy's post-WW2 history, but I'd imagine it was already quite strong in the 70s or atleast in the 80s. So I don't think it was a pushover even for the Soviet Pacific Fleet, especially when Gorshkov's blue water build-up began quite late. Sure, back then South Korea was poor, but so was China and Sino-Russia relations were bad. Not to mention that Kim's Navy is still a thing. Despite being mostly outdated, it has a huge number of submarines and missile boats and that must tie up a considerable part of ROK Navy.

Smetlivy still in service...

http://tass.com/defense/946908

George1 wrote:Smetlivy still in service...



http://tass.com/defense/946908

Good Lord

KiloGolf wrote:

George1 wrote:Smetlivy still in service...



http://tass.com/defense/946908

Good Lord

Apparently the Kerch had just received new Ukrainian engines before the fire put her out of action permanently. They were salvaged and this old girl could be around another 10-20 years

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.

Bigger ships can also be designed and armed under the same modern philosophy. In this case bigger ships keep the power advantage.

Your point is limited to the current weapon systems, but bigger platforms allow to the use of bigger, more powerful and longer range weapons. It is perfectly possible to design new weapons that exceed the capabilities of ships of the 5000 tons weight class (Gorshkovs or super-Gorshkovs). We see on land how Russia has weapons that exceed the maximum size to use land mobile platforms, and must be silo based.

The question is not only about number of missiles of the current weapons, it is also about the potential power to be installed on sea platforms.

Also bigger ships means also improvements of their navigation capabilities in blue waters.

If Russia reneounced not until now to have destroyers, cruisers and aircraft carriers until now, despite 25 years of selecting the better Sovietic ships to keep, do not expect to do it now. The destroyers, cruisers and aircraft carriers that Russia keeps are over 25 years old. Ships of the size (or even bigger, like seems to be the case for aircraft carriers, designed under the same philosophy used for the modern frigates would be significantly more powerful tan the frigates.

While Russia will likely order very few new ships (will continue producing the ships currently ordered and in production), I have not doubt that will advance in their ship building capabilities of all the types of ships, and this is why I expect the first unit of the new projects of destroyer, cruiser and aircraft carrier to be build in the short-mid term. Production capabilities only are assured when the first unit is completed. Maybe by 2025?. Something to see.

The veteran Smetlyvy may be old, but it is in good shape.
It has received extensive modernization over the years such as:

-Replacement of the rear twin 76mm mount with a modern towed variable depth sonar.
-Addition of two quad Kh-35 Uran anti-ship missile launchers.

It's anti-aircraft missile system has also seen some modernization and is still useful as it can deal even with low flying targets. It can engage two targets at once and fire two missiles at each. The ship has fired SAMs at recent trainings.

Do not underestimate this ship because of age. These KASHIN class destroyers were ahead of their time when they were introduced. They were the first ever destroyers to feature gas turbines and other modern features. They are quoted to be able to do up to 35-40 knots in good sea conditions.

On Sunday, amid celebrations of the Russian Navy's Pacific Fleet Day, the Ministry of Defense confirmed that the Russian Navy's Far Eastern fleet would be taking delivery of three brand new Steregushchiy-class corvettes in the near future.

https://sputniknews.com/military/201705211053830393-russian-pacific-fleet-new-heavy-corvettes/

PapaDragon wrote:Well if fresh engines fall in your lap it would be a waste not to use them eh?

Still this old thing these days is used either as offshore patrol vessel or more often, for naval show visits like one in Greece earlier this year.

It will float for a while more, just don't expect her to do anything too relevant.

India still uses six of these, right?

The ship is taking part of the group deployed to Syria.

In my view is right to do it.

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.

I do not read it in the 2015 Russian Maritime Doctrine, where the Russian plan is explained.

1st helicopter carrier could appear by 2022. https://www.gazeta.ru/army/2017/05/25/10693049.shtml
They'll be "analogous to Mistral class". https://regnum.ru/news/it/2279920.html
IMO, they'll want 2 in the Pacific, 2 in the Black Sea, 1-2 in the Baltic, 1-2 in the Northern Fleet, 6-8 total. They lost time waiting for Mistrals- as the old Central Asian proverb goes: "before going to a banquet, eat your full at home!"

Tsavo Lion wrote:1st helicopter carrier could appear by 2022. https://www.gazeta.ru/army/2017/05/25/10693049.shtml
They'll be "analogous to Mistral class". https://regnum.ru/news/it/2279920.html
IMO, they'll want 2 in the Pacific, 2 in the Black Sea, 1-2 in the Baltic, 1-2 in the Northern Fleet, 6-8 total. They lost time waiting for Mistrals- as the old Central Asian proverb goes: "before going to a banquet, eat your full at home!"

They do not need a Helio carrier in the baltic....that is the last place such a ship would go.

They even the black sea doesn't need one they said they plan to put on there anyway.

So far the official number is four and really that's fine russia is never going to be some grand naval power.

Like china or the US.

Navy is 3rd rank for them. They will never build 8 Helio carriers....

PapaDragon wrote:

Tsavo Lion wrote:1st helicopter carrier could appear by 2022. https://www.gazeta.ru/army/2017/05/25/10693049.shtml
They'll be "analogous to Mistral class". https://regnum.ru/news/it/2279920.html
IMO, they'll want 2 in the Pacific, 2 in the Black Sea, 1-2 in the Baltic, 1-2 in the Northern Fleet, 6-8 total. They lost time waiting for Mistrals- as the old Central Asian proverb goes: "before going to a banquet, eat your full at home!"

I had a feeling that these ships will be getting priority

They will not only need replacement for old transports but these carriers are also very good anti sub asset due to helicopters and anti sub work is always high on RU navy's priority list

Whenever they don't haul stuff they can go hunting for subs, Japanese style

Unlikly Russia will start building more than one anytime soon.

They do not have the escorts it would require they need to build the escorts for it first, I can see them building on around 2022 for testing purposes and all but chances are even by 2030 they will only have two AT best.

If they are desperate they could just order some Chinese frigates and slap Russian systems on it which is a fairly reasonable move, they were going to do this for the Mistrals buy four type 054A's two for each Mistral because they knew they could not get the escorts built fast enough.

Are these ships as helicopter CARRIERS even allowed in the Black Sea?

Since they'll also carry naval infantry (marines), the Montreux Convention is irrelevant here. Besides, relations with Turkey & other littoral states may change for worse any time. Kaliningrad enclave is vulnerable so they may want them in the Baltic. Another reason: it's closer to Med.Sea from there than from Severomorsk, in case the 2 from the Black Sea (those could also deploy to the Indian Ocean & Far East to reinforce the 2 from the Pac. Fleet) need reinforcement or can't deploy there in time for some reason. IMO, by that time, there'll be enough escorts. I doubt they'll be used extensively as ASW carriers for which they are not designed. As the article mentioned, the Soviet admirals wanted the original project to be multi-purpose & that's what doomed it.

Tsavo Lion wrote:Since they'll also carry naval infantry (marines), the Montreux Convention is irrelevant here. Besides, relations with Turkey & other littoral states may change for worse any time. Kaliningrad enclave is vulnerable so they may want them in the Baltic. Another reason: it's closer to Med.Sea from there than from Severomorsk, in case the 2 from the Black Sea (those could also deploy to the Indian Ocean & Far East to reinforce the 2 from the Pac. Fleet) need reinforcement or can't deploy there in time for some reason.  IMO, by that time, there'll be enough escorts. I doubt they'll be used extensively as ASW carriers for which they are not designed. As the article mentioned, the Soviet admirals wanted the original project to be multi-purpose & that's what doomed it.  

If Kalingard was attacked one Helio carrier will do jack shit to save it.

Reinforce the ones in the Pacific? Russia has no need nor desire to do put that Helio carriers in the Pacific, honestly this is just silly to say. You have a common problem, you expect the Russian navy to be some huge naval power, THAT is NEVER going to happen. Russia does not require the naval size you think it does.

If they wanted to base four helio carriers in the Pacific. They would base them in the Pacific fleet not all the way int he Black Sea Fleet.

Even the Russian Mod Said they only want four, nor is there any reason they need more than that.

Well, the situation is different now:

Россия нуждается в серьезном обновлении десантных кораблей, особенно учитывая участие в Сирийском конфликте и активную работу «Сирийского экспресса». Из-за недостатка десантных кораблей в ВМФ России для решения задачи снабжения сирийской армии и российской группировки в Сирии пришлось даже приобрести у Турции подержанные гражданские сухогрузы. К тому же явное отсутствие в ГПВ-2025 авианосцев можно хоть как-то компенсировать постройкой 2−4 вертолётоносцев, способных хотя-бы выполнять боевые задачи в прибрежной зоне.

https://regnum.ru/news/polit/2279935.html
They'll be needed in the Med. Sea for the foreseeable future, hence it'll make sense to base them also in the Black Sea. The 2 new Ivan Gren Class ships are less capable, otherwise they'd build more of them. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivan_Gren-class_landing_ship Should costruction of new a/c carriers be delayed/cancelled, at least the helo carriers could somewhat compensate, & STOVL jet project could also be revived. https://hushkit.files.wordpress.com/2015/03/original.jpg
https://68.media.tumblr.com/58b44b013316c0bd2c56954c558b9253/tumblr_inline_no1kgjDoDq1t90ue7_1280.jpg
The USN & Marines are going to use F-35s on new LHAs.
http://www.thebaynet.com/articles/1216/naspatuxentriversoarsintothefuturewiththef35.htmlhttps://theaviationist.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/P-America.jpg

The main purpose of these ships is as amphibious landing ships. These are not ships to replace Aircraft Carriers. Not sure if the people realizes that the project have like 6-8 helicopters only.

The campaign of Syria will have an impact in the timeline of this project, but only that. I would expect this ship keeps the current proportions by fleet of the Russian Navy, and likely only will appear near Syria to test and when older big amphibious ships get exhausted.

These ships won't fully substitute/replace Aircraft Carriers but they are better than almost nothing as the Adm. K. will spend the next few years in refit. So, excluding the Baltic, 4 in the Pac.Fleet + 2 in the BSF + 2 in NF = 8 total, unless they decide to have 2-3 in PF instead & keep 2 in BSF + 2 in NF, which = 6-7 total. They are easier, quicker & cheaper to build, & can be used as mini carriers as some may even be w/o well decks just like USN LHAs. I won't be surprised if they buy back the 2 Kiev class TAKRs from China & modernize them, even if not exactly  like Adm. Gorshkov was for India. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kiev-class_aircraft_carrier#Ships  Pl. note that they used to carry more helos than fighters. Besides new attack helos, tilt rotor aircraft may also be developed. The RF Navy doesn't need to & will never be like the USN but due to its 4 Fleets +1 Flotilla (the US has 6 Fleets) geographical separation the overall numbers must be adequate for their AOR & to be able to support each other outside those AORs, as they were since WWII.

Tsavo Lion wrote:These ships won't fully substitute/replace Aircraft Carriers but they are better than almost nothing as the Adm. K. will spend the next few years in refit. So, excluding the Baltic, 4 in the Pac.Fleet + 2 in the BSF + 2 in NF = 8 total, unless they decide to have 2-3 in PF  instead & keep 2 in BSF + 2 in NF, which = 6-7 total. They are easier, quicker & cheaper to build, & can be used as mini carriers as some may even be w/o well decks just like USN LHAs. I won't be surprised if they buy back the 2 Kiev class TAKRs from China & modernize them, even if not exactly  like Adm. Gorshkov was for India. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kiev-class_aircraft_carrier#Ships  Pl. note that they used to carry more helos than fighters. Besides new attack helos, tilt rotor aircraft may also be developed. The RF Navy doesn't need to & will never be like the USN but due to its 4 Fleets +1 Flotilla (the US has 6 Fleets) geographical separation the overall numbers must be adequate for their AOR & to be able to support each other outside those AORs, as they were since WWII.

To compare this new project of amphibious ship with the current Russian aircraft carrier, is a non-sense. The aircraft carrier has far more helicopters, and that without begin with the aircrafts. The new ship is an amphibious landing ship, not a warship.