Russian Navy: Status & News #3

eehnie wrote:

SeigSoloyvov wrote:

GarryB wrote:

What are they waiting for? Yes they still haven't sorted out first one but it takes nearly a decade for Russia to build ship of this size so why not start building more right now? It's not like they can finish them before first one is fixed.

What is the rush?

Getting the design right before mass producing them is just basic common sense... they already have plenty of vessels available to them.... there is no huge hurry to get more into service AFAIK.

The whole point is to produce one type of multipurpose vessel that can do everything and then once it is all working to put it into production and have lots of them.

No point in having lots of them only to find they can't be made to work and need a complete redesign.

Russians do not have "Plenty of ships ready" they fleet is in disarray right now needing larger hull ships the only things they have more than 10 of is corvettes, other then that they got what 3 new frigates and some "Light" Frigates?.

and maybe a handful of still functioning soviet era vessels they haven't been modernized

They don't even have 15 operational Nuclear submarines the majority of that fleet is in overhaul or awaiting overhaul.

Their surface ships are in even more sorry state. Yeah thats alot of ships alright.

This is false. Russia has 37 nuclear submarines in active service, number which excludes those that are being modernized. And the rest of the fleet is in good condition.

Russia obviously need to include still the most modern missiles, but it can be done perfectly in ships under 35 years old. These ships are significantly newer than a good number of your (US) aircraft carriers.

37 subs on paper not even 15 of those are sea ready. Operational means subs they can deploy at combat levels not floating in a dock.

The rest of the fleet is not in "good condition" if by good condition you mean they can float sure if by good condition you mean they can fire (their 30 plus-year-old missiles) sure yes theyh ave kaliber wielding ships sure but that's three frigates and a handful of small corvettes

Majority of the Russian fleet is old and out dated tech and they are bringing newer stuff online sure but it's SLOW as hell not even five full sized frigates yet and that is fact.

Maybe in 30 years things will be different for them however that time won't be anytime soon.

Isos wrote:

Big_Gazza wrote:

Isos wrote:Well they are sending an obsolete cruiser to protect their forces in Syria

Obsolete?  The Slavas are hardly obsolete given that they pack P-500 Bazalt carrier-killers (maybe P-1000 Vulcan) and S-300F.

Not the slava but the other one I forrgot the name.

Talking about the slave, btw they needed to send one from the pacific fleet ...

Now that they have grigorovitch it is much easier and faster to send a big ship in syria to control the airspace ... with a gorshkov it would be far better than even with a slava. It just proves that they need more modern frigates.

One ship cannot control airspace if can merely create an Aerial denial zone around it. If you want to deny airspace you need aircraft if you want aircraft and you have no air bases nearby you need a carrier

eehnie wrote:

SeigSoloyvov wrote:

GarryB wrote:.

Russians do not have "Plenty of ships ready" they fleet is in disarray right now needing larger hull ships the only things they have more than 10 of is corvettes, other then that they got what 3 new frigates and some "Light" Frigates?.

and maybe a handful of still functioning soviet era vessels they haven't been modernized

They don't even have 15 operational Nuclear submarines the majority of that fleet is in overhaul or awaiting overhaul.

Their surface ships are in even more sorry state. Yeah thats alot of ships alright.

This is false. Russia has 37 nuclear submarines in active service, number which excludes those that are being modernized. And the rest of the fleet is in good condition.

Russia obviously need to include still the most modern missiles, but it can be done perfectly in ships under 35 years old. These ships are significantly newer than a good number of your (US) aircraft carriers.

11 nuclear submarines in use and that is it. That's all there is. George1 posted this recently:

So we have only in service:

5x Oscars

3x Akulas

2x Sierras

1x Victor

11 SSN/SSGNs..

https://img-fotki.yandex.ru/get/372788/227305704.37/0_178a34_6774fb6a_orig

GarryB wrote:

What are they waiting for? Yes they still haven't sorted out first one but it takes nearly a decade for Russia to build ship of this size so why not start building more right now? It's not like they can finish them before first one is fixed.

What is the rush?

Getting the design right before mass producing them is just basic common sense... they already have plenty of vessels available to them.... there is no huge hurry to get more into service AFAIK.

The whole point is to produce one type of multipurpose vessel that can do everything and then once it is all working to put it into production and have lots of them.

No point in having lots of them only to find they can't be made to work and need a complete redesign.

The rush is that their ships are rotting away lot faster than new ones are even being ordered let alone built or delivered.

They should have laid down dozen new frigates over past several years whose engines and weapons would have been ready and certified by the time they would reach mid point in their construction.

Instead they are waiting for what exactly? Nobody knows. But they have anime concept art at least right? 


If entire Russian Navy personel committed collective suicide tomorrow would you be making excuses for that too and telling everyone how it's all part of some brilliant master plan?

SeigSoloyvov wrote:

eehnie wrote:

SeigSoloyvov wrote:

GarryB wrote:

What are they waiting for? Yes they still haven't sorted out first one but it takes nearly a decade for Russia to build ship of this size so why not start building more right now? It's not like they can finish them before first one is fixed.

What is the rush?

Getting the design right before mass producing them is just basic common sense... they already have plenty of vessels available to them.... there is no huge hurry to get more into service AFAIK.

The whole point is to produce one type of multipurpose vessel that can do everything and then once it is all working to put it into production and have lots of them.

No point in having lots of them only to find they can't be made to work and need a complete redesign.

Russians do not have "Plenty of ships ready" they fleet is in disarray right now needing larger hull ships the only things they have more than 10 of is corvettes, other then that they got what 3 new frigates and some "Light" Frigates?.

and maybe a handful of still functioning soviet era vessels they haven't been modernized

They don't even have 15 operational Nuclear submarines the majority of that fleet is in overhaul or awaiting overhaul.

Their surface ships are in even more sorry state. Yeah thats alot of ships alright.

This is false. Russia has 37 nuclear submarines in active service, number which excludes those that are being modernized. And the rest of the fleet is in good condition.

Russia obviously need to include still the most modern missiles, but it can be done perfectly in ships under 35 years old. These ships are significantly newer than a good number of your (US) aircraft carriers.

37 subs on paper not even 15 of those are sea ready. Operational means subs they can deploy at combat levels not floating in a dock.

The rest of the fleet is not in "good condition" if by good condition you mean they can float sure if by good condition you mean they can fire (their 30 plus-year-old missiles) sure yes theyh ave kaliber wielding ships sure but that's three frigates and a handful of small corvettes

Majority of the Russian fleet is old and out dated tech and they are bringing newer stuff online sure but it's SLOW as hell not even five full sized frigates yet and that is fact.

Maybe in 30 years things will be different for them however that time won't be anytime soon.

On paper not, commissioned, in the water. 37 in active service and 12 more in the reserve, these 12 are the nuclear submarines under modernization. No-one of them (including reserve) reached 38 years old, while a 18.18% of your (US) aircraft carriers is older than the oldest Russian nuclear submarine (including reserve). And this despite the decommission and commission of 2017, because at the end of 2016 a 27.27% of your fleet of aircraft carriers was older than the oldest Russian nuclear submarine (including reserve).

If you want we can analyze the level of deployment in your (US) fleet of the missiles of less than 5 year old in active service.

If you have evidence of nuclear submarines in bad condition post it. If not your comments are only bids to spread shit.

Lul Russia does not have 37 Nuclear submarines active that is funny to say and utterly delusional.

You realize we build carriers one a time and are constantly making them right that is why there is such a time difference between the first and last.

You also realize we rotate our carriers so that while one is deployed another is getting modernized, you clearly don't know what the hell you are talking about.

A US carrier is a constantly changing platform, newer electronics and whatnot are always installed when it's taking offline. The hull maybe be "old" but whats in it isn't the same cannot be saiud for 90 percent of the Russian fleet, you clearly know nothing about how my country operates.

your own admin posted evidence...but how like you to ignore anything you do not agree with it typical of you enhine very typical.

Sorry, are you referring only to SSNs and SSGNs?

I didn't see any SSBN reported in the inventory, am I wrong?

SeigSoloyvov wrote:Lul Russia does not have 37 Nuclear submarines active that is funny to say and utterly delusional.

You realize we build carriers one a time and are constantly making them right that is why there is such a time difference between the first and last.

You also realize we rotate our carriers so that while one is deployed another is getting modernized, you clearly don't know what the hell you are talking about.

A US carrier is a constantly changing platform, newer electronics and whatnot are always installed when it's taking offline. The hull maybe be "old" but whats in it isn't the same cannot be saiud for 90 percent of the Russian fleet, you clearly know nothing about how my country operates.

your own admin posted evidence...but how like you to ignore anything you do not agree with it typical of you enhine very typical.

The US carriers are just moving airport, no one of them has any usable radar / attack/defence equipment.


The radars are vintage 60s make, and they actually coming from decommissioned destroyers, as pre-owned item .


They doing same modernisation, but the PR more about than than the actual value.
The Russian warships has the same modernisation program , like installing new communication equipment , navigation equipment, refurbish missiles/ systems, but it has no comparable PR : D

Peŕrier wrote:Sorry, are you referring only to SSNs and SSGNs?

I didn't see any SSBN reported in the inventory, am I wrong?

Just SSN and SSGN

SSBNs operate separately and don't engage other ships so it's separate topic

PapaDragon wrote:The rush is that their ships are rotting away lot faster than new ones are even being ordered let alone built or delivered.

They should have laid down dozen new frigates over past several years whose engines and weapons would have been ready and certified by the time they would reach mid point in their construction.

Lay down a dozen frigates, so that their uncompleted hulls could occupy slots in the shipyards and prevent other needed vessels from being built? Yeah, I see now you must have a degree in shipyard management hanging on your wall...

BTW which RuN ships do you think are "rotting away"? Please name just one..... a dated photo would be good. AFAIK they have shed those ships that were in poor condition, and the stereotypical rust buckets are no more. The Soviet era stuff that is left is in good serviceable condition.

Big_Gazza wrote:

PapaDragon wrote:The rush is that their ships are rotting away lot faster than new ones are even being ordered let alone built or delivered.

They should have laid down dozen new frigates over past several years whose engines and weapons would have been ready and certified by the time they would reach mid point in their construction.

Lay down a dozen frigates, so that their uncompleted hulls could occupy slots in the shipyards and prevent other needed vessels from being built?  Yeah, I see now you must have a degree in shipyard management hanging on your wall...

BTW which RuN ships do you think are "rotting away"?  Please name just one..... a dated photo would be good.   AFAIK they have shed those ships that were in poor condition, and the stereotypical rust buckets are no more.  The Soviet era stuff that is left is in good serviceable condition.

If they can't finish those things in that amount of time then why the fuck would they even bother with funding the navy?

They are supposed to plan this shit ahead not make it up as they go along.

And what other ''needed'' vessels are you talking about? Corvettes are going only marginally less slow. And you don't need logistics vessels if your whole navy is approaching expiration date anyway.

From what it is possible to see from outside, it has not been a lack of building capacity to forestall recapitalization of the frigate line.

Anyone having a look at the steady pace of Talwar construction for the Indian Navy should recognize they could easily have built a dozen more Pr. 11356 for the Russian Navy.

My bet is that at end of the 90ies they had not enough funds, then they decided to make do with the ships they inherited from Soviet Union to switch to a brand new generation of vessels.

The six Pr. 11356 frigate planned for the Black Sea Fleet have been openly a contingency plan, but if they deemed it necessary they could have just ordered more, and earlier than the Crimean crisis, avoiding even the troublesome and time consuming replacement of the ucrainian-built power plants.

It's quite understandable that Pr.11356 are basically upgraded late 80ies - early 90ies tech, and I suppose they didn't want induct in this decade large numbers of them unless strictly necessary.

Ships serve for 30+ years, it#s not the best case to have to fill a fleet with ships already more than a decade old in technology the moment they are laid down on the slips.

About the Gorshkovs, they have incurred on several hiccups related to electronics and its main AAW system and the whole program is far from being on track, still if no additional Pr. 11356 have been ordered, it would indicate Russian Navy is not deeply concerned about it.

The main critical point, IMHO, is the lack of any AAW destroyer project, whatever AAW missile the Gorshkovs could embark, they will lack the support of a proper C4I dedicated to AAW and related sensors.

At the moment, only Pyotr Velikiy could provide such functions, and they would be far better with a couple of AAW destroyer in everyone of the three main fleets, Northern Fleet comprised.

Anyway, in the last years they have almost totally recapitalized the support fleet, from harbor tugs to oceanographic vessels, and they are true force multiplier  through both efficient logistical support and intelligence/environmental data collection.

Singular_Transform wrote:

SeigSoloyvov wrote:Lul Russia does not have 37 Nuclear submarines active that is funny to say and utterly delusional.

You realize we build carriers one a time and are constantly making them right that is why there is such a time difference between the first and last.

You also realize we rotate our carriers so that while one is deployed another is getting modernized, you clearly don't know what the hell you are talking about.

A US carrier is a constantly changing platform, newer electronics and whatnot are always installed when it's taking offline. The hull maybe be "old" but whats in it isn't the same cannot be saiud for 90 percent of the Russian fleet, you clearly know nothing about how my country operates.

your own admin posted evidence...but how like you to ignore anything you do not agree with it typical of you enhine very typical.

The US carriers are just moving airport, no one of them has any usable radar / attack/defence equipment.


The radars are vintage 60s make, and they actually coming from decommissioned  destroyers, as pre-owned item .


They doing same modernisation, but the PR more about than than the actual value.
The Russian warships has the same modernisation program , like installing new communication equipment , navigation equipment, refurbish missiles/ systems, but it has no comparable PR : D

So funny to read him, when he even falls to say right that the US has almost all the time 2 aircraf carriers under construction at same time. Well. Nothing more to say. The pro US members always whit their own mantra, saying how bad is the state of the Russia Navy.

Big_Gazza wrote:

PapaDragon wrote:The rush is that their ships are rotting away lot faster than new ones are even being ordered let alone built or delivered.

They should have laid down dozen new frigates over past several years whose engines and weapons would have been ready and certified by the time they would reach mid point in their construction.

Lay down a dozen frigates, so that their uncompleted hulls could occupy slots in the shipyards and prevent other needed vessels from being built?  Yeah, I see now you must have a degree in shipyard management hanging on your wall...

BTW which RuN ships do you think are "rotting away"?  Please name just one..... a dated photo would be good.   AFAIK they have shed those ships that were in poor condition, and the stereotypical rust buckets are no more.  The Soviet era stuff that is left is in good serviceable condition.

You are obviously right. Just Franco posted this (in the previous page) yesterday or two days ago:

franco wrote:Disposal of submarines and destroyers tenders.

The Ministry of Defense plans to utilize the submarines of project 877 Novosibirsk (factory number 601) and Vologda (plant number 602).

The Ministry of Defense is also planning to utilize the destroyers of Project 956 Gremyaschiy (plant number 870) and Gremyashchy (factory number 874, formerly Uncontrolled).

The deadline for completion of works for all is November 10, 2018. Usable parts to be kept for spares and delivered back to the Navy. Hulls must be cut up. The cost of recycling one ship is 127,737,300 rubles.

This is a picture of the two ships of the Project 956 to be scrapped. Both decommissioned. This is how both are looking now (picture of July 30, 2017):

http://fleetphoto.ru/ship/63516/
http://fleetphoto.ru/ship/66001/



The ship with hull number 404 (plant number 870) was commissioned in 1988 (28 years old today) and decommissioned in 2006. This ship is younger than a 36.36% of the ships of the current fleet of aircraft carriers of the US.

The other ship together (plant number 874) was commissioned in 1991 (26 years old today) and decommissioned in 2012. This ship is younger than a 45.45% of the ships of the current fleet of aircraft carriers of the US.

Both are early decommissions done in an environment of reduction of the combat fleet of the Russian Navy. These ships were not decommissioned because they were obsolete or in poor condition and Russia was in need of a new more modern ship of the same size class. These ships were decommissioned because Russia considered to have a number of them exceeding the needs (this is the alone case where early decommissions make sense). If not these ships would continue in the Russian Navy today.

Obviouly, the said by PapaDragon does not agree with the reality. In the refered to the combat ships, pure trolling, like SeygSoloyvov.

You are comparing a ship that isn't even 10k tons to a 100k ton AC ?. Dude something wrong with you

Are you that foolish? AC's cannot be made at the ratio that a ship of that size is made. so, of course, our AC's would be older hull wise we cannot make them every five years the process has always been you building a couple at a time and just replace the older ones once a newer one is complete.

AC's take way longer to build than the ship you displayed, also again only the hulls are that and our AC's do not use 60's era radar the flying hell? that claim is beyond absurd our AC's also have plenty of defenses I swear what's next russian ships can blow up the moon?.

Yes the entire point of an Aircraft carrier is to be a floating airfield...that is why they are made.

Your entire defense is built on lunacy and displays how utterly biased you are and how you love to wrap things.

I make the mistake of actually responding to you, that one is on me. Won't make it again.

SeigSoloyvov wrote:You are comparing a ship that isn't even 10k tons to a 100k ton AC ?. Dude something wrong with you

Are you that foolish? AC's cannot be made at the ratio that a ship of that size is made. so, of course, our AC's would be older hull wise we cannot make them every five years the process has always been you building a couple at a time and just replace the older ones once a newer one is complete.

AC's take way longer to build than the ship you displayed, also again only the hulls are that and our AC's do not use 60's era radar the flying hell? that claim is beyond absurd our AC's also have plenty of defenses I swear what's next russian ships can blow up the moon?.

Yes the entire point of an Aircraft carrier is to be a floating airfield...that is why they are made.

Your entire defense is built on lunacy and displays how utterly biased you are and how you love to wrap things.

I make the mistake of actually responding to you, that one is on me. Won't make it again.

Your double standard "US" / "Russia" is very enlightening.of your trolling attitudes, because you also apply your "Russian" standandards to the Russian aircraft carrier, that is younger than a 45.45% of the fleet of US aircraft carriers.

The reality is that for you the size matters not, it is the flag. It is very easy to make a chain again of ridiculous quotes of your comments about the Russian aircraft carrier. In fact your comment about the displacement of the ships is totally stupid. A cheap excuse, a cheap pretext without technical or scientific basis, to justify your trolling about the Russian Navy.

There are pictures and public data about every Russian ship to prove your comments are wrong, but also about every US ship to prove how your comments are also unfair and toxic. We are able to see and to compare.

PapaDragon wrote:And you don't need logistics vessels if your whole navy is approaching expiration date anyway.  

Expiration date? You think a warship is like a bottle of milk?

FFS PD, we've been over this endlessly but you still throw out the same complaints.  Bottom line is that a surface navy is low on Russia's priority list, and issues such as Ukropi treachery robbing them of a source of maritime gas turbine engines has resulted in a go-slow on any hulls that need such propulsion. Russian military simply has better things to spend money on at the moment than a series of Frigates with no engines. You now, the things that REALLY concern the HATOstani bastards like Yars, Sarmat and HGVs, Iskander, Borei & Bulava, Yasen, Zircon & Kalibre & Kh-102,  upgraded Pr494 with 72x Onyx, PAK FA, S-400/500, Armata & Kurganetz... you get the picture I think?

But yeah, lets keep moaning about the same thing endlessly, cuz that will make it all better.

Peŕrier wrote:The main critical point, IMHO, is the lack of any AAW destroyer project, whatever AAW missile the Gorshkovs could embark, they will lack the support of a proper C4I dedicated to AAW and related sensors.

At the moment, only Pyotr Velikiy could provide such functions, and they would be far better with a couple of AAW destroyer in everyone of the three main fleets, Northern Fleet comprised.

Hmmm... they lack a "proper" C4I?  Please define "proper" and advise the functional performance specs required to meet the criteria?  What makes you think the 22350 fire controls and radars won't be at least equivalent to a much-vaunted, mythical, all-singing, gold-plated, unobtainium-made-real, Gods-own Murican Aegis?

Does anyone really think that current day Russia can't build the equivalent of a progressively tweaked Murican system from the 1980s?

Peŕrier wrote:Anyway, in the last years they have almost totally recapitalized the support fleet, from harbor tugs to oceanographic vessels, and they are true force multiplier through both efficient logistical support and intelligence/environmental data collection.

Excellent point, and one usually missed by the nay-sayers and eternal pessimists.

SeigSoloyvov wrote:

AC's take way longer to build than the ship you displayed, also again only the hulls are that and our AC's do not use 60's era radar the flying hell? that claim is beyond absurd our AC's also have plenty of defenses I swear what's next russian ships can blow up the moon?.

Yes the entire point of an Aircraft carrier is to be a floating airfield...that is why they are made.

Your entire defense is built on lunacy and displays how utterly biased you are and how you love to wrap things.

I make the mistake of actually responding to you, that one is on me. Won't make it again.

They DO use 60s radars.

Check the main radars of the Nitimtz ships...

All of them come from decommissioned 60s destroyers.


Google is your friend.

Big_Gazza wrote:

PapaDragon wrote:And you don't need logistics vessels if your whole navy is approaching expiration date anyway.  

Expiration date? You think a warship is like a bottle of milk?

FFS PD, we've been over this endlessly but you still throw out the same complaints.  Bottom line is that a surface navy is low on Russia's priority list, and issues such as Ukropi treachery robbing them of a source of maritime gas turbine engines has resulted in a go-slow on any hulls that need such propulsion. Russian military simply has better things to spend money on at the moment than a series of Frigates with no engines. You now, the things that REALLY concern the HATOstani bastards like Yars, Sarmat and HGVs, Iskander, Borei & Bulava, Yasen, Zircon & Kalibre & Kh-102,  upgraded Pr494 with 72x Onyx, PAK FA, S-400/500, Armata & Kurganetz... you get the picture I think?

But yeah, lets keep moaning about the same thing endlessly, cuz that will make it all better.

Navy is topic of discussion here. And since you mentioned Yasens they constantly keep talking about cutting down series instead of doubling down and hitting double digit number.

They don't have problems with engines for those and since they are not ordering surface ships they should have cash to redirect there temporarily.

So what's the holdup?

PapaDragon wrote:

Navy is topic of discussion here. And since you mentioned Yasens they constantly keep talking about cutting down series instead of doubling down and hitting double digit number.

They don't have problems with engines for those and since they are not ordering surface ships they should have cash to redirect there temporarily.

So what's the holdup?

Dunno what you mean. There is no holdup on Yasens. They've laid down 6x 885Ms (not including Severodvinsk), Kazan in 2009 and one each year starting 2013. Never heard any rumours they wanted to increase the series to double figures, so not sure what cash needs to redirected "temporarily". I guess we can watch this space to see if they lay down another hull in 2018....

Hmmm... they lack a "proper" C4I? Please define "proper" and advise the functional performance specs required to meet the criteria? What makes you think the 22350 fire controls and radars won't be at least equivalent to a much-vaunted, mythical, all-singing, gold-plated, unobtainium-made-real, Gods-own Murican Aegis?

As a start, a long range 3D radar, lots of ATC, Threat assessment and ESM staff with related workstations, plus ability to coordinate and direct in automatic or semiautomatic mode other ships AAW systemsvand related sensors, distributing targets, priorities and engagement' madalities.

As I see it, at the moment Pyotr Velikiy and maybe Kuznetsov are able to provide analogous performances.

Sovremennyy should have provided for the same functions on a smaller scale, but their present level of efficiency and operativeness are debatable, pending a major upgrade.

Peŕrier wrote:

Hmmm... they lack a "proper" C4I?  Please define "proper" and advise the functional performance specs required to meet the criteria?  What makes you think the 22350 fire controls and radars won't be at least equivalent to a much-vaunted, mythical, all-singing, gold-plated, unobtainium-made-real, Gods-own Murican Aegis?

As a start, a long range 3D radar,  lots of ATC, Threat assessment and ESM staff with related workstations, plus ability to coordinate and direct in automatic or semiautomatic mode other ships AAW systemsvand related sensors, distributing targets, priorities and engagement' madalities.

As I see it, at the moment Pyotr Velikiy and maybe Kuznetsov are able to provide analogous performances.

Sovremennyy should have provided for the same functions on a smaller scale, but their present level of efficiency and operativeness are debatable, pending a major upgrade.

Regarding radars, without having access to accurate performance specs its hard to evaluate, but I'd be hugely surprised if the Furke-4 5P-27 and the Poliment 5P-20K phased array are not an equivalent to modern US units. I'd also be flabbergasted if the Sigma combat system can't support datalinks between similarly equipped vessels and be able to network their sensor data and allow peer-assignation of targets between vessels. Layout of the combat system workstations may or may not follow Western practice, but that's hardly a pertinent issue.

Regarding the Soviet-era vessels, why would you assign "analogous performance" to older vessels that still use 1980s technology in their combat management systems, yet deny such to a new vessel using tech that is at least 2 decades more recent?

All things considered, I'm sure the 22350s are an effective equivalent to US Aegis-equipped vessel. Insistence on an alternative viewpoint smacks of ideological (or racial?) bias more than any real technical evaluation, part of the usual NATO knee-jerk reaction of shitcanning anything Russian.

I'd also be flabbergasted if the Sigma combat system can't support datalinks between similarly equipped vessels

Well, that's the main focus of a modern combat management system... Of course it supports datalinks.

SeigSoloyvov wrote:Lul Russia does not have 37 Nuclear submarines active that is funny to say and utterly delusional.

Only thing what is funny is when western people talking about Russian navy, they always take into account only submarines which are 100% active and they assume that submarine is in active service only if it has been spotted on the sea by some blogger or journalist. Latter, they compare that number with number of "submarines on papper" of particular western navy.  
example US 60 Active SSN, France 6 active SSN or 6 UK SSN.

When mentioning western subs, they somehow assume that all, or at least 90 percent of them are battle ready. There were a lot of reports for example of only 1 or 2 operational UK attack submarine, at particular time.

But Regarding Russian navy, situation is like this

SSBN   (12 subs total, 11 active)
-----------------------------------------------------
active: 6
3 Delta III, 5 Delta IV, 3 Borei

overhaul: 1
1 Delta IV

SSGN (9 subs total, 6 active, 1 overhaul, 2 modernization, 1 in trials )
----------------------------------------------------------------
active: 6
5 Oscar II, 1 Yasen

modernization: 2
2 Oscar II  949AM level

overhaul: 1
Oscar II

SSN (16 subs total, 6 active, 2 modernization, 2 overhaul, 6 reserve )
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
active: 6
3 Akulas, 2 Sierra II, 1 Viktor III

modernization: 2
2 Akula 971M level, one to be ready by the end of the 2017

overhaul with partial modernization: 2
1 Akula, to be ready by end of the year
1 Viktor III, to be ready by the end of the year

reserve:6
3 Akula, of which one is still in the base with ready crew, which suggest that in case of the war in can be used.
2 Sierra subs, of which one is still in the base with crew ready
1 Victor III class, still in the base with ready crew


SSK(21 subs total, 19 active, 2 overhaul)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
regarding SSK it is important to mention that number of 100% fully active subs can vary, but they can be bring to service very quick if necessary.

Unknown number of special purpose submarines active like Delta IV (Podmoskovye, Losharik, Sarov and etc.)

At the end of the day Russian navy (even if we exclude all submarines on overhaul, or modernization)
they have more than 42 submarines ready to go to sea.  
23 ready to go Nuclear submarines (11SSBN + 12 SSGN/SSN)

plus Special purpose submarines which can't be ignored because russian navy is the only navy in the world to operate such subs.