Russian Navy: Status & News #3

SeigSoloyvov wrote:


.....They plan to build 12 17K ton plus ships by 2025....

yeah I question this estimately....alot....Maybe two at best sure. 12? yeah right.

The RF shown quite good improvement in project management past few years.

BN-800, Floating nuc plant, KAZAN, aircraft procurement and so on.

So who know?

But even 2 ship would be big step ahead.


RF+CN together procuring this much ships means the US influence dismissing in the world.

Not sure if this is the right thread for this


rambo54‏ @reutersanders 22h22 hours ago

#submarines
#K_561 #Kazan finally on google earth. Ruler tells us it is about 130m (10m shorter than K-560)

SeigSoloyvov wrote:

Tsavo Lion wrote:

Twelve ships of the 10,000t "Leader class" are planned to enter service from 2023-25, split between the Northern and Pacific Fleets. They will all be nuclear powered. They will be fitted with the ABM-capable S-500 SAM and Kalibr (SS-N-27) cruise missile. The Project 23560 destroyer is expected to replace the Project 956 (NATO reporting names: Sovremennyy-class) and Project 1155 (Udaloy-class) warships that make up the backbone of the Russian Navy’s oceangoing surface combatant forces. ..The Leader will carry the Kalibr (SS-N-27 Sizzler) anti ship and Oniks (SS-N-26 Strobile) land-attack missile systems or their versions as well as a ship-based variant of the S-500 surface-to-air missile system with the antimissile [& possibly ASAT] capability. http://navyrecognition.com/index.php/news/defence-news/2017/june-2017-navy-naval-forces-defense-industry-technology-maritime-security-global-news/5333-russian-mod-approves-project-23560-leader-class-nuclear-powered-destroyer-preliminary-design.html

when escorted by icebreakers or ice strenghtened ships, they could also sail in the Arctic, Antarctic & Okhotsk Sea most, if not all, of the year.

"Прибой" обойдется в 40 миллиардов http://www.vesti.ru/doc.html?id=2904942&cid=7

R40B=673,559,600.78, or $673.6M x 4 of them= $2,694.4B.

.....They plan to build 12 17K ton plus ships by 2025....

yeah I question this estimately....alot....Maybe two at best sure. 12? yeah right.

Umm... I think it means that the first ship is going to enter service in 2023-25 ("from 2023-25"). 12 by 2025 is obviously not going to happen.

^^^
Agreed, first​ one in 23. Probably another translation kerfuffle as usual...

Btw,

Vann7 wrote:Interesting new information..

Apparently Russia Navy is now in conversation to get 10 Borei Submarines AND
10 Yasen Submarines.  

Solid plans. So that means they would have (roughly) 10 Yasens, 10 Boreis, 12 Improved Kilos an 3 Ladas in service by around 2025. That's 35 new submarines. In addition, they should build additional SSKs between 2021-25, right? So... 4-6 Kalinas by 2025? Overall, that's around 40 new submarines. After that they'll build 6-8 additional Kalinas + 12-14 Huskies. Or maybe 2 additional Yasens/less Huskies?

So by the mid/late-2030s:

10 Borei

12 Yasen
12 Husky

9 (12?) Improved Kilo + 3 Lada
12 Kalina

= 58 submarines

???

Vann7 wrote:Apparently Russia Navy is now in conversation to get 10 Borei Submarines AND 10 Yasen Submarines.

Could you post a reference? Even if so, they may be asking for more than really needed to get what they hope to get. It also could be that the 1st 3 Boreis are much inferior to the current model & they are not happy with them. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Borey-class_submarine#Project_955A http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/borei-class
That will give them 7 Borei IIs, unless the 10 is on top of the 3 they now got. Later, these could be converted to SSGNs or other uses.

Isos wrote:

PapaDragon wrote:
................. 

An helicopter will work together with the ship. While the ship needs to get closer to the sub to engage it, an helicopter can go and attack it and let the ship get away from the sub. The ship carries bigger torpedos and if it lunch them at 20 km they will be spotted by the sub. If the helicopter  lunch its small torpedo, it will be 1 km from the sub so the time for countering them will be small. Today subs can't engage helicopters.

If the ship have torpedo for its heli they will probably use them. If not they will use Kalibr torpedo or ship's torpedo.

Bigger torpedo means bigger sonar and more space for bigger computers thus achieving better Pk with a bigger warehead.

Paket is for counter torpedo. It is lunch against torpedo to defend the ship. It has a very small range and it wont engage submarine because the ship will be in the engagement rrange of the sub. Gorshkov class ships have Paket for self defence and kalibr Torpedo (kalibr missile with a torpedo on it) with 50km range for attacking subs. You can't compare them to standard torpedo.

So a modem ship armed with anti-sub helicopter and/or Kalibr missile/torpedo does not need standard torpedoes installed in order to successfully fight submarines?

PapaDragon wrote:

Isos wrote:

PapaDragon wrote:
................. 

An helicopter will work together with the ship. While the ship needs to get closer to the sub to engage it, an helicopter can go and attack it and let the ship get away from the sub. The ship carries bigger torpedos and if it lunch them at 20 km they will be spotted by the sub. If the helicopter  lunch its small torpedo, it will be 1 km from the sub so the time for countering them will be small. Today subs can't engage helicopters.

If the ship have torpedo for its heli they will probably use them. If not they will use Kalibr torpedo or ship's torpedo.

Bigger torpedo means bigger sonar and more space for bigger computers thus achieving better Pk with a bigger warehead.

Paket is for counter torpedo. It is lunch against torpedo to defend the ship. It has a very small range and it wont engage submarine because the ship will be in the engagement rrange of the sub. Gorshkov class ships have Paket for self defence and kalibr Torpedo (kalibr missile with a torpedo on it) with 50km range for attacking subs. You can't compare them to standard torpedo.

So a modem ship armed with anti-sub helicopter and/or Kalibr missile/torpedo does not need standard torpedoes installed in order to successfully fight submarines?  

No it doesn't. Look at the gorshkov which is meant to be the backbone of the navy, it donesn't carry normal 533mm torpedoes, just Paket for self defences and kalibr/torpedo with the Ka-27 (maybe armed ?) for attack. Even Udaloy II has its torpedo tube fited with missiles/torpedo.

This is better than having normal torpedoes. If a ship fight a sub with 533 mm torpedoes it will have maybe 2*3 rounds while most subs will have 18+ torpedoes on board, it can reach 40 for some nuc subs. The advantage of the depth and detection range goes to the sub as it can dive and hide behind underground mountains. So in 1 vs 1 the ship will take huge risks.

While with rocket missile/torpedo and ka-27 it can fire at the subs at 50 km thus bing out of range of subs torpedoes.

Isos wrote:

PapaDragon wrote:...........

So a modem ship armed with anti-sub helicopter and/or Kalibr missile/torpedo does not need standard torpedoes installed in order to successfully fight submarines?  

No it doesn't. Look at the gorshkov which is meant to be the backbone of the navy, it donesn't carry normal 533mm torpedoes, just Paket for self defences and kalibr/torpedo with the Ka-27 (maybe armed ?) for attack. Even Udaloy II has its torpedo tube fited with missiles/torpedo.

This is better than having normal torpedoes. If a ship fight a sub with 533 mm torpedoes it will have maybe 2*3 rounds while most subs will have 18+ torpedoes on board, it can reach 40 for some nuc subs. The advantage of the depth and detection range goes to the sub as it can dive and hide behind underground mountains. So in 1 vs 1 the ship will take huge risks.

While with rocket missile/torpedo and ka-27 it can fire at the subs at 50 km thus bing out of range of subs torpedoes.

So this makes new Russian corvettes 100% effective anti-sub platforms. Definitely puts RU Navy's emphasis on smaller ships in perspective.

Thanks for explaining it, it has been bugging me for quite a while.

Russian Defense Minister Sergey Shoygu says construction of the larger ships, such as the Shtorm aircraft carrier and Lider nuclear-powered destroyer, will not be prioritized for now. The Russian Navy will instead continue receiving conventional and nuclear-powered submarines and heavily armed corvettes and frigates. http://aviationweek.com/defense/maks-airshow-spotlights-russian-aerospace-industry-transition?NL=AW-05&sfvc4enews=42&cl=article_2&utm_rid=CPEN1000001576407&utm_campaign=10764&utm_medium=email&elq2=55d98ae42c504495acf7045ecb64c027

They can't be prioritized anyway as both are still in development.

Tsavo Lion wrote:.........................
They can't be prioritized anyway as both are still in development.

Shtorm is not prioritized because it is a fantasy project that Navy has zero use for and that was never going to be built.

Lider is not prioritized because they fixed gas turbine engine issue. They will probably redesign them now to be full sized nuclear destroyers instead of medium sized ships.

Also, shipyard that is supposed to build them is undergoing renovation.

Some were saying that "China doesn't need & would never build a/c carriers". They were proven wrong. Being both the Pacific & Arctic/N.Atlantic power, Russia stipulated the need for them in its naval doctrine (see prev. posts) & will start building them eventually, be it Storm or a smaller class. As we all know, they already did build several nuclear icebreakers, 4 biggest non-a/c carrier nuclear surface warship, & 4 biggest SSBNs. https://www.rt.com/news/world-biggest-icebreaker-russia-275/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kirov-class_battlecruiser
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Typhoon-class_submarine

PapaDragon wrote:

Tsavo Lion wrote:.........................
They can't be prioritized anyway as both are still in development.

Shtorm is not prioritized because it is a fantasy project that Navy has zero use for and that was never going to be built.

Lider is not prioritized because they fixed gas turbine engine issue. They will probably redesign them now to be full sized nuclear destroyers instead of medium sized ships.

Also, shipyard that is supposed to build them is undergoing renovation.

What is the difference between gaz and diesel engines of ships in term of fuel used and the consumption ? In which situation one is better than the other ?

PapaDragon wrote:

Tsavo Lion wrote:.........................
They can't be prioritized anyway as both are still in development.

Shtorm is not prioritized because it is a fantasy project that Navy has zero use for and that was never going to be built.

Lider is not prioritized because they fixed gas turbine engine issue. They will probably redesign them now to be full sized nuclear destroyers instead of medium sized ships.

Also, shipyard that is supposed to build them is undergoing renovation.

Intoxication

Isos wrote:.............
What is the difference between gaz and diesel engines of ships in term of fuel used and the consumption ? In which situation one is better than the other ?

With nuclear bigger is always better. Efficiency increases with size.

Gas is good for medium stuff.

PapaDragon wrote:

Isos wrote:.............
What is the difference between gaz and diesel engines of ships in term of fuel used and the consumption ? In which situation one is better than the other ?

With nuclear bigger is always better. Efficiency increases with size.

Gas is good for medium stuff.

and you think with this knowledge you can talk about fantasy projects (note that we see just the same in the sea since decades)

eehnie wrote:...................
and you think with this knowledge you can talk about fantasy projects (note that we see just the same in the sea since decades)

Care to back up that BS with some data?

Just politely asking before rest of the naval crowd here tears you a new one...

PapaDragon wrote:

eehnie wrote:...................
and you think with this knowledge you can talk about fantasy projects (note that we see just the same in the sea since decades)

Care to back up that BS with some data?

Just politely asking before rest of the naval crowd here tears you a new one...  

Data about what? about how the Project 23000 is not a fantasy project is a real project perfectly doable and about how there are current aircraft carriers in the sea that are like the Project 23000?

Isos wrote:

PapaDragon wrote:

Tsavo Lion wrote:.........................
They can't be prioritized anyway as both are still in development.

Shtorm is not prioritized because it is a fantasy project that Navy has zero use for and that was never going to be built.

Lider is not prioritized because they fixed gas turbine engine issue. They will probably redesign them now to be full sized nuclear destroyers instead of medium sized ships.

Also, shipyard that is supposed to build them is undergoing renovation.

What is the difference between gaz and diesel engines of ships in term of fuel used and the consumption ? In which situation one is better than the other ?

Gas turbines are generally alot more compact, require fairly high maintenance but provide very fast power increase and output, its fairly easy to make auxilary lines to provide electricity for ships subsystems (easier than with diesels that is), have very high power to weight ratio. Fuel consumption is somewhat higher on gas turbines.

eehnie wrote:

PapaDragon wrote:

eehnie wrote:...................
and you think with this knowledge you can talk about fantasy projects (note that we see just the same in the sea since decades)

Care to back up that BS with some data?

Just politely asking before rest of the naval crowd here tears you a new one...  

Data about what? about how the Project 23000 is not a fantasy project is a real project perfectly doable and about how there are current aircraft carriers in the sea that are like the Project 23000?

Perfectly doable? Sure. Question is... for whom?

Yes, there are like 11-12 of them floating at this moment, question is, how many are built by Russia?

None, but there is a 1st time for everything! How many nuclear icebreakers did USA built? Technically, the Lenin was the 1st nuclear powered aircraft carrying ship!
http://l7.alamy.com/zooms/00954359004a4796be77d84aca63d711/mi-2-helicopter-lands-on-lenin-nuclear-powered-icebreaker-b9cn5h.jpg
All subsequent icebreakers been carrying helicopters, as well as 4 CGNs with 3 each in a hangar below deck. http://n7.alamy.com/zooms/5caae96227df411d864870c003cc2113/a-helicopter-aboard-the-nuclear-powered-icebreaker-arktika-b9dd8w.jpg
http://media.gettyimages.com/photos/helicopter-on-board-russian-nuclearpowered-icebreaker-50-years-of-picture-id148507970?s=170667a
http://c8.alamy.com/comp/B9DD8E/a-helicopter-on-the-helipad-aboard-the-nuclear-powered-icebreaker-B9DD8E.jpg http://www.bing.com/cr?IG=6637F7CDF2EF49A9A0BF0FF339ECB88F&CID=1A0C77B1BBA061FD38767D07BAA66096&rd=1&h=oYuGjdJ4lbUr0o4XiehFAsC2QcYmtljEWlHxUoCo_JE&v=1&r=http%3a%2f%2fl450v.alamy.com%2f450v%2fa2mahd%2frussia-arctic-circle-franz-josef-land-helicopter-on-the-deck-of-nuclear-a2mahd.jpg&p=DevEx,5068.1
http://jeffhead.com/modelbuilds/RUS-CGN099.htm
http://www.shipspotting.com/photos/middle/4/6/3/1180364.jpg
http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/kirov/images/1144_3.jpg

Indias Aircraft carrier is based off of a heavily modified cruiser. Done in Russia. So while it wasn't built from ground up, it was modified to the point that it became one.

Tsavo Lion wrote:None, but there is a 1st time for everything! How many nuclear icebreakers did USA built? Technically, the Lenin was the 1st nuclear powered aircraft carrying ship!  http://l7.alamy.com/zooms/00954359004a4796be77d84aca63d711/mi-2-helicopter-lands-on-lenin-nuclear-powered-icebreaker-b9cn5h.jpg

USA is not building any nuclear icebreakers for the same reason Russia is not building any supercarriers: they don't need them.

Wrong! From 2015: http://www.maritime-executive.com/features/mission-impossible-a-new-us-icebreaker

..a major study found the U.S. needs six new icebreakers — three heavy and three medium — to carry out the Coast Guard's increased missions. ..the Navy says explicitly in their strategic planning documents that they depend on the Coast Guard to access icy waters. The Navy has no icebreakers of their own..
http://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/2015/06/01/411199853/as-the-arctic-opens-up-the-u-s-is-down-to-a-single-icebreaker

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/2006-01-02-icebreakers_x.htm https://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/02/us/politics/obama-to-call-for-more-icebreakers-in-arctic-as-us-seeks-foothold.html
The most efficient heavy icebreaker is a nuclear 1!

Tsavo Lion wrote:Wrong! From 2015: http://www.maritime-executive.com/features/mission-impossible-a-new-us-icebreaker

..a major study found the U.S. needs six new icebreakers — three heavy and three medium — to carry out the Coast Guard's increased missions. ..the Navy says explicitly in their strategic planning documents that they depend on the Coast Guard to access icy waters. The Navy has no icebreakers of their own..
http://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/2015/06/01/411199853/as-the-arctic-opens-up-the-u-s-is-down-to-a-single-icebreaker

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/2006-01-02-icebreakers_x.htm https://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/02/us/politics/obama-to-call-for-more-icebreakers-in-arctic-as-us-seeks-foothold.html
The most efficient heavy icebreaker is a nuclear 1!

Yes they need icebreakers. They will build icebreakers.

They will not build nuclear Icebreakers​.