Russian Navy: Status & News #3

Good post Ned86.

Here is what I have to say to all the drama-queens and naysayers of this forum.

The German Navy has a total of 6 submarines (all of the Type 212 class)
5 out of these 6 submarines are in partial or full overhaul/modernization at this very moment at Kiel shipyard and unable to put to sea for some time.
Reason: Slow work because of lack of spares due to budget constraints.
By the way, these Type 212 vessels have the fancy-shmancy AIP system....

Ned86 wrote:

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.

its like air defense systems. The Retards think that if they don't see it on a blog post, it isn't real. Much like PAK FA. Anyway, you are responding to a guy who makes claims is a US soldier in Syria that knows all in situation but reposting crap from Twitter. Who cares what they think.

miketheterrible wrote:

Ned86 wrote:

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.

its like air defense systems. The Retards think that if they don't see it on a blog post, it isn't real. Much like PAK FA.  Anyway, you are responding to a guy who makes claims is a US soldier in Syria that knows all in situation but reposting crap from Twitter.  Who cares what they think.

Okay first off I said nuclear submarines not none Nuclear so you can take your 42 number someplace else since none nuke sub never had anything to do with what I said.

also, your data is wrong I know your getting that shit from a Wiki which is about as accurate with that stuff has shooting a ball with a blunderbuss and if wiki is your source I have no reason to take such statements seriously.

Cause Wiki man seriously?

Here is something your own admin posted which debunks your hardcore

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

Also Mike continue to embarrass yourself all you are showing if you a fanboy incapable of accepting criticism about the Russian forces, I critize my own guys if I can do that I am pretty sure you can ut on those big boy pants and use your god dam head for once.

For the record pal I think Russian AD is better then anything we have AD wise.

+ 1 Yassen finished and could be deployed if Something goes wrong. It could destroy at least 1 Carrier battlegroup alone ...

It looks like some familiar names are coming back onto the Syrian Express after a well earned rest and rework back home.

This is 127 Minsk off Malta two days ago. She last exited the Bosphorus August 2016 on her way to the Baltic.


https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DMmsZ-VW0AEVaZG.jpg

Also, running 2/3 weeks ahead of her, this is 031 Alexander Otrakovsky on her first trip to Syria from the Black Sea since she trekked home to the Arctic in May 2016.


https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DMvqpzPW4AArc31.jpg

Isos wrote:+ 1 Yassen finished and could be deployed if Something goes wrong. It could destroy at least 1 Carrier battlegroup alone ...

One Yasen cannot destroy a Carrier battle group alone.....it's claims like this that make people call guys like you trolls because that is silly has shit to say.

SeigSoloyvov wrote:

Okay first off I said nuclear submarines not none Nuclear so you can take your 42 number someplace else since none nuke sub never had anything to do with what I said.

Well then ok, there is minimum 25 nuclear subs active, in the state that they can go to the sea tomorrow if necessary.
11SSBN, 6 SSGN, 6 SSN plus 1 TYPHOON (can carry torpedoes at least), plus few special purpose subs.

Also, KILO class should not be ignored, as it has demonstrated huge range and efficiency in Syria operation.
There is 6 improved Kilos plus 3-4 already passed modernization which brings them close to the Imp. KILO standard.

Most importent thing is that every navy will rather have 20 KILOs battle ready than 1-2 Trafaglar or Irbis class submarines.
Just these 6 improved Kilos which can carry up to 50 kalibr cruise missiles, which is worth as almost all operational UK attack subs fleet.

SeigSoloyvov wrote:
also, your data is wrong I know your getting that shit from a Wiki which is about as accurate with that stuff has shooting a ball with a blunderbuss and if wiki is your source I have no reason to take such statements seriously.

You pick up data for october where by coincidence a lot of submarines just returned from Patrols, Drills and Parade so they need quick overhaul in dock, and they will be at the sea by the end of the month.

this is the data for september
https://img-fotki.yandex.ru/get/243077/227305704.35/0_176dcf_610e9b1f_orig

SeigSoloyvov wrote:

Isos wrote:+ 1 Yassen finished and could be deployed if Something goes wrong. It could destroy at least 1 Carrier battlegroup alone ...

One Yasen cannot destroy a Carrier battle group alone.....it's claims like this that make people call guys like you trolls because that is silly has shit to say.

It has a 40 VLS tubes for anti ship missiles which is allmost 2 times more than Oscar II with P-700.

Exercices showed that lonely subs can destroy carriers. I prefere to believe that than a guy that provide no argument and just tell poeple they are trolls because they don't think like him.

Isos wrote:

SeigSoloyvov wrote:

Isos wrote:+ 1 Yassen finished and could be deployed if Something goes wrong. It could destroy at least 1 Carrier battlegroup alone ...

One Yasen cannot destroy a Carrier battle group alone.....it's claims like this that make people call guys like you trolls because that is silly has shit to say.

It has a 40 VLS tubes for anti ship missiles which is allmost 2 times more than Oscar II with P-700.

Exercices showed that lonely subs can destroy carriers. I prefere to believe that than a guy that provide no argument and just tell poeple they are trolls because they don't think like him.

It has 40 VLS big deal you act like kalibers are immune to AA they aren't dude I don't need to provide a sound argument because your claim is beyond the point of sanity it's pure fantasy and utterly ridiculous whats next Russians submarines can fly into space, now if they was Zircons I'd be more accepting of this buy even 40 direct hit missiles won't sink an entire battle group.

There is a difference between thinking like me saying stupid thing like a Yasen can do what you claim, common sense is common goddam sense.

It's true exercise has shown that, however, is the sub getting close enough and firing a SIMULATED HIT. Meaning they just pressed a button with the Words "Locked on" appear. No dummy torp was ever fired to test if it would reach the ship in question.

Now the people with that argument is would the torpedo connect? if so could it do enough damage? that is up to date and isn't fact and is generally assumption.

so please save that logic because I have heard some funny things come from you...A yasen able to wipe out a battlegroup solo L-O-L

Ned86 wrote:

SeigSoloyvov wrote:

Okay first off I said nuclear submarines not none Nuclear so you can take your 42 number someplace else since none nuke sub never had anything to do with what I said.

Well then ok, there is minimum 25 nuclear subs active, in the state that they can go to the sea tomorrow if necessary.
11SSBN, 6 SSGN, 6 SSN plus 1 TYPHOON (can carry torpedoes at least), plus few special purpose subs.

Also, KILO class should not be ignored, as it has demonstrated huge range and efficiency in Syria operation.
There is 6 improved Kilos plus 3-4 already passed modernization which brings them close to the Imp. KILO standard.

Most importent thing is that every navy will rather have 20 KILOs battle ready than 1-2 Trafaglar or Irbis class submarines.
Just these 6 improved Kilos which can carry up to 50 kalibr cruise missiles, which is worth as almost all operational UK attack subs fleet.

SeigSoloyvov wrote:
also, your data is wrong I know your getting that shit from a Wiki which is about as accurate with that stuff has shooting a ball with a blunderbuss and if wiki is your source I have no reason to take such statements seriously.

You pick up data for october where by coincidence a lot of submarines just returned from Patrols, Drills and Parade so they need quick overhaul in dock, and they will be at the sea by the end of the month.

this is the data for september
https://img-fotki.yandex.ru/get/243077/227305704.35/0_176dcf_610e9b1f_orig

Ah I see what your doing your using subs like that old Typhoon and special purpose subs to inflate the numbers.

That old Typhoon was used to test file the Borei's missiles it's not fit for combat duty at all.

Now if you using subs that aren't fit for combat duty but could TECHNICALLY be used for that sure you could get around 25.

Still Russians can only field about 15 subs that are good for combat conditions nuclear wise.

If you wanna inflate those numbers with subs like the typhoon well your call I guess.

Guys, you know what would be nice? If Russian Navy would lay down another ship or at least announce model of new ship so we could finally stop talking about all this bullshit and start talking about ships again...

It has 40 VLS big deal you act like kalibers are immune to AA they aren't dude I don't need to provide a sound argument because your claim is beyond the point of sanity it's pure fantasy and utterly ridiculous whats next Russians submarines can fly into space, now if they was Zircons I'd be more accepting of this buy even 40 direct hit missiles won't sink an entire battle group.

There is a difference between thinking like me saying stupid thing like a Yasen can do what you claim, common sense is common goddam sense.

It's true exercise has shown that, however, is the sub getting close enough and firing a SIMULATED HIT. Meaning they just pressed a button with the Words "Locked on" appear. No dummy torp was ever fired to test if it would reach the ship in question.

Now the people with that argument is would the torpedo connect? if so could it do enough damage? that is up to date and isn't fact and is generally assumption.

so please save that logic because I have heard some funny things come from you...A yasen able to wipe out a battlegroup solo L-O-L

.
Back to top

WTF ??

Of course it is logical. In, not just one, but few exercices single subs manage to sink a carrier and its escort.

Why do you think modern torpedos would miss while even in WWII they were good enough to destroy lot of ships ??? Having defences against them don't make you immune to them, same for Kalibrs. Even exocet managed to touch US ships. North Corean sub manage to destroy a South Corean ASW corvette operating with sonar on, British had all the information they need about exocet and still lost 3 ships.

If you really think that 40 supersonic Oniks or kalibr that were made to destroy specially US ships are easy to destroy then you are the troll.

Attacking is always easier than defending because you choose when and where to Attack while you have to defend 24/7. Russian can hide their subs in the ocean very well because they have lot of data about temprature and salinity which have a great impact on detection by sonar. A Carrier will be spotted far away by the sub.

PapaDragon wrote:
Guys, you know what would be nice? If Russian Navy would lay down another ship or at least announce model of new ship so we could finally stop talking about all this bullshit and start talking about ships again...  

They have alot of stuff laid down it's more they take forever to finish the dam things

Last news

https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-russian-ghost-submarine-its-u-s-pursuers-and-a-deadly-new-cold-war-1508509841?mod=e2tw

http://www.opex360.com/2017/10/23/un-sous-marin-russe-donne-du-fil-retordre-aux-forces-navales-occidentales-en-mediterranee/

Russian improved kilo sub Krasnodar gave hard time to NATO forces to follow him in the mediteranean sea. They deployed P-8, frigates, helicopters but it isn't said if they found the sub while submerged.

They are saying a Yassen subs was send off the cost of Scotland to monitor US exercices involving Goerge Bush carrier.

Isos wrote:Last news

https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-russian-ghost-submarine-its-u-s-pursuers-and-a-deadly-new-cold-war-1508509841?mod=e2tw

..........

Saw this in news search but it's behind paywall. Can you paste article text here?

Isos wrote:

It has 40 VLS big deal you act like kalibers are immune to AA they aren't dude I don't need to provide a sound argument because your claim is beyond the point of sanity it's pure fantasy and utterly ridiculous whats next Russians submarines can fly into space, now if they was Zircons I'd be more accepting of this buy even 40 direct hit missiles won't sink an entire battle group.

There is a difference between thinking like me saying stupid thing like a Yasen can do what you claim, common sense is common goddam sense.

It's true exercise has shown that, however, is the sub getting close enough and firing a SIMULATED HIT. Meaning they just pressed a button with the Words "Locked on" appear. No dummy torp was ever fired to test if it would reach the ship in question.

Now the people with that argument is would the torpedo connect? if so could it do enough damage? that is up to date and isn't fact and is generally assumption.

so please save that logic because I have heard some funny things come from you...A yasen able to wipe out a battlegroup solo L-O-L

.
Back to top

WTF ??

Of course it is logical. In, not just one, but few exercices single subs manage to sink a carrier and its escort.

Why do you think modern torpedos would miss while even in WWII they were good enough to destroy lot of ships ??? Having defences against them don't make you immune to them, same for Kalibrs. Even exocet managed to touch US ships. North Corean sub manage to destroy a South Corean ASW corvette operating with sonar on, British had all the information they need about exocet and still lost 3 ships.

If you really think that 40 supersonic Oniks or kalibr that were made to destroy specially US ships are easy to destroy then you are the troll.

Attacking is always easier than defending because you choose when and where to Attack while you have to defend 24/7. Russian can hide  their subs in the ocean very well because they have lot of data about temprature and salinity which have a great impact on detection by sonar. A Carrier will be spotted far away by the sub.

Dude you are really going off the deep end and are clinging to insanity.

There is no modern example of a carrier and her escorts being sunk by a submarine. There are nothing and all examples you are saying come from simulated hits where nothing was fired basically a sub just got within firing range and fired an imaginary torp and that's it, that is your argument which is showing how god dam sily what your saying is.

By the same aspects I can say "so like we locked onto your russians ships therefore we sunk them yep, that's it we locked on means the ships would die if we fired torps at them"

I am sure if I said that you'd come out with more delusional shit.

WW2 xD first off there is examples of ships taking many torpedo hits and staying afloat in WW2 really dude you don't know history at all. Yeah ships did get sunk with one torp thats true but there is equally many cases where more than 3 torps couldn't do it. Go back to school because you are modifying history tof it your narrative.

You are funny really funny.

first off the NK's used a midget sub which is pretty much undetectable in most cases. Also the Pohang-class corvette isn't ASW ships so you are lying right there they were simply coastal defense warships so keep making lies up~

Yes the brits lost some ships to subs...this is true but there is a massive difference between that and you claiming a yasen could sink an entire American carrier group. A huge god dam difference could the yasen get a ship before it's fired upon? sure chances are maybe it could.

Um no defending is easier in the case of the submarine it's designed to get the first shot off after that it will be found your freaking delusional if you think it won't be found after that and I'll say the same about any American submarine once it fires it will be found.

Woah this is cute a guy saying A single Yasen could sink a supercarrier, a Destroyer Squadron of around 6 Burkes, Two cruisers and at least two attack submarines and you are calling me a Troll......Oh my lawd that is funny has hell!. That's just in peace time in wartime it would get bigger

Yes your 40 Kalibers wouldn't do well against all the AA that would be tossed at them from such a group. Just stop talking cause this is just sad.

don't get me wrong this is a Russian forum so I expect bias on part of the Russians just like if I was on an american one there would be bias there but this is just beyond bias.

PapaDragon wrote:

Isos wrote:Last news

https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-russian-ghost-submarine-its-u-s-pursuers-and-a-deadly-new-cold-war-1508509841?mod=e2tw

..........

Saw this in news search but it's behind paywall. Can you paste article text here?

Can't see it neither. But I can read the one in french it quotes the other article. You can translate with Google.

PapaDragon wrote:

Isos wrote:Last news

https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-russian-ghost-submarine-its-u-s-pursuers-and-a-deadly-new-cold-war-1508509841?mod=e2tw

..........

Saw this in news search but it's behind paywall. Can you paste article text here?

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/wall-street-journal/a-russian-ghost-submarine-its-us-pursuers-and-a-deadly-new-cold-war/news-story/b47a6d4910a45262bcb3809db881c5e3

Here is the article there is alot of text there so I cannot copy and paste it on this device.

Article quotes a Kilo class sub and Deisel subs are pretty much invisible since they make no noise but once they fire that's a different story.

The Russians, for example, had a series where a Kilo was playing wargames against a Corvette (their own ships), the Corvette blocked the kilos shot and was found after it fired, it was some baltic sea series.

There is no modern example of a carrier and her escorts being sunk by a submarine. There are nothing and all examples you are saying come from simulated hits where nothing was fired basically a sub just got within firing range and fired an imaginary torp and that's it, that is your argument which is showing how god dam sily what your saying is.

Yeah I know but that doesn't mean the torpedo will be like "HOOOO it's a supermega US ship I can't destroy it !!! Let's go on the decoys instead !!!" Modern are the ships but modern are the torpedo too and they are made to destroy modern ships so what you are just saying "noo they can't touch our carrier", so no argument from you.

By the same aspects I can say "so like we locked onto your russians ships therefore we sunk them yep, that's it we locked on means the ships would die if we fired torps at them"

At least russians don't denie the fact that if they are locked on they could get hit by a torpedo or a missiles like you are doing ... If you fire 40 missiles made to go through you defences in one salvo, yeah there are great chances that 4 or 5 goes through and destroy at least your carrier.

WW2 xD first off there is examples of ships taking many torpedo hits and staying afloat in WW2 really dude you don't know history at all. Yeah ships did get sunk with one torp thats true but there is equally many cases where more than 3 torps couldn't do it. Go back to school because you are modifying history tof it your narrative.

Yeah but actual ships are not as armoured as WWII ships so unless it is a carrier, a torpedo would at least make it unoperable. You can see on YouTube many video of torpedo hiting modern ships ...

first off the NK's used a midget sub which is pretty much undetectable in most cases. Also the Pohang-class corvette isn't ASW ships so you are lying right there they were simply coastal defense warships so keep making lies up~

Hhahahah the ship was in a ASW mission with its sonar working in active mode. They should have detected the torpedo and evade it, it seems so easy to do so when we read you.

Um no defending is easier in the case of the submarine it's designed to get the first shot off after that it will be found your freaking delusional if you think it won't be found after that and I'll say the same about any American submarine once it fires it will be found.

If it manages to hit the carrier it will have plenty of time to leave because other ships will need to help the 5000 people on board. So yeah it can go away, or lead some vessels in an ambush.

Argentinian subs fired torpedo at british ships and didn't hit because of badly prepared torpedo. But yet they were never found. A yassen can go 600m and lunch torpedos as defencive measure to get the ships busy defending.

Um no defending is easier in the case of the submarine it's designed to get the first shot off after that it will be found your freaking delusional if you think it won't be found after that and I'll say the same about any American submarine once it fires it will be found.

No for the crew it's not because they know they can be hit anytime. A Yassen can wait totaly silent and lunch 10 torpedos at close range. Go deal with this ... Torpedo are hard to jam. You put the exact location of the ship before lunching it. It knows how a ship move andat what speed. If you lunch decoys it will still know where the ship is and where it will be and can differenciate the two signals.

Yes your 40 Kalibers wouldn't do well against all the AA that would be tossed at them from such a group. Just stop talking cause this is just sad.

Lunch when ? You will detect them at 40km and you will have like 20s to deal with them. Look what happened in Yemen when two subsoonic missile were fired, US ship lunched unsuccesfull missile and used jammers to deal with them. Imagine now 40 missiles that are supersonic, that make evasive manoeuvres and that can home-on your jaming...

Another proof that what you are saying is BS.

SeigSoloyvov wrote:

Ned86 wrote:

SeigSoloyvov wrote:

Okay first off I said nuclear submarines not none Nuclear so you can take your 42 number someplace else since none nuke sub never had anything to do with what I said.

Well then ok, there is minimum 25 nuclear subs active, in the state that they can go to the sea tomorrow if necessary.
11SSBN, 6 SSGN, 6 SSN plus 1 TYPHOON (can carry torpedoes at least), plus few special purpose subs.

Also, KILO class should not be ignored, as it has demonstrated huge range and efficiency in Syria operation.
There is 6 improved Kilos plus 3-4 already passed modernization which brings them close to the Imp. KILO standard.

Most importent thing is that every navy will rather have 20 KILOs battle ready than 1-2 Trafaglar or Irbis class submarines.
Just these 6 improved Kilos which can carry up to 50 kalibr cruise missiles, which is worth as almost all operational UK attack subs fleet.

SeigSoloyvov wrote:
also, your data is wrong I know your getting that shit from a Wiki which is about as accurate with that stuff has shooting a ball with a blunderbuss and if wiki is your source I have no reason to take such statements seriously.

You pick up data for october where by coincidence a lot of submarines just returned from Patrols, Drills and Parade so they need quick overhaul in dock, and they will be at the sea by the end of the month.

this is the data for september
https://img-fotki.yandex.ru/get/243077/227305704.35/0_176dcf_610e9b1f_orig

Ah I see what your doing your using subs like that old Typhoon and special purpose subs to inflate the numbers.

That old Typhoon was used to test file the Borei's missiles it's not fit for combat duty at all.

Now if you using subs that aren't fit for combat duty but could TECHNICALLY be used for that sure you could get around 25.

Still Russians can only field about 15 subs that are good for combat conditions nuclear wise.

If you wanna inflate those numbers with subs like the typhoon well your call I guess.

"like that old Typhoon"  Where do you see the project 941 in the link posted?

"to inflate the numbers" The oldest nuclear submarine of Russia (that is not of the Project 941) is  younger than a 18.18% of the current US aircraft carriers.

"TECHNICALLY"

What a troll.

The source mentioned does not include all the nuclear submarines of Russia, And is not only about special purpose submarines. Modern combat submarines like those of the Project 955 (Nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarines) are not included. In fact no-one of the Russian SSBN is included.

Torpedo "Dagdizel" surpassed in all indicators American Mark 48

https://svpressa.ru/war21/article/183287/

Big_Gazza wrote:

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'm not questioning if Sigma per se could manage complex scenarios, I'm telling that frigate's level configurations are not up to the job.

It's not the system, but its specific configuration.

First, without a LR 3D radar, Sigma will be missing the ability to search and track aerial targets at very long ranges.

Second, with only an handful of consoles and operators, those operators will get overwhelmed by hundreds of tracks, most of them unidentified, when operating in a congested airspace.

Third, to coordinate other ships' AAW assets, a ship should not only have the proper assets, it should have an appropriate role inside a task group hierarchy.

A real admiral could be embarked even on a frigate, but usually functions and ship's capabilities should be matched.

As of today, in the AAW realm the russian navy is short of ships able to take the lead, Peter the Great and Kuznetsov apart.

'
Found this on Reddit so I'm posting it for information purposes (I'm not trying to start​ a flame war or anything, just for orientation)