Russian Navy: Status & News #3

PapaDragon wrote:
I am honestly shocked at the absence of new Shtorm-class 100k ton supercarrier in new military budget.

It's was definitely supposed to be built.

Maybe it's a classified project?

Most likely it's will be built in that secret Arctic shipyard.

One next to Santa's house...

Santa's elfs can do precision welding...

Rudolph and his crew can handle R&D for EM catapults...

Santa Claus can provide financing...

I am not being serious guys...

I heard there is huge hidden shipyard that will be able to build 6 super carriers in 5 years and MiG-41K is almost finished. Its all going to be paid by crowdfunding.

PS Welders are going to be hired in Finland and South Korea.

PapaDragon wrote:
Project 1234 Nanuchka-class missile ships (all of the ones in service, not just those two unfinished hulls that are also being redesigned) to receive Uran missiles (4x4, 16 in total) as part of overhaul and upgrade package, new engines as well, probably some other stuff like radars and whatnot...

https://eagle-rost.livejournal.com/717076.html

https://iz.ru/679884/nikolai-surkov-aleksei-ramm/ovodov-vooruzhili-uranom

Few of those are still NK-2s from late 70s from what i am aware, i would not waste my money on those but oh well...

Militarov wrote:

PapaDragon wrote:
Project 1234 Nanuchka-class missile ships (all of the ones in service, not just those two unfinished hulls that are also being redesigned) to receive Uran missiles (4x4, 16 in total) as part of overhaul and upgrade package, new engines as well, probably some other stuff like radars and whatnot...

https://eagle-rost.livejournal.com/717076.html

https://iz.ru/679884/nikolai-surkov-aleksei-ramm/ovodov-vooruzhili-uranom

Few of those are still NK-2s from late 70s from what i am aware, i would not waste my money on those but oh well...

so what would you do?

Militarov wrote:

PapaDragon wrote:
Project 1234 Nanuchka-class missile ships (all of the ones in service, not just those two unfinished hulls that are also being redesigned) to receive Uran missiles (4x4, 16 in total) as part of overhaul and upgrade package, new engines as well, probably some other stuff like radars and whatnot...

https://eagle-rost.livejournal.com/717076.html

https://iz.ru/679884/nikolai-surkov-aleksei-ramm/ovodov-vooruzhili-uranom

Few of those are still NK-2s from late 70s from what i am aware, i would not waste my money on those but oh well...

Missiles, engines, radars, it's all off-the-shelf equipment that can be installed easy and quickly

Those old 70s boats still float no problem so might as well put them to work some more

Not sure if this link has been posted, but its generally a good article.

Why russian navy is a more capable adversary than its appears

I have a few minor quibbles (like its claims that Russia isn't succeeding with SSK AIP), but generally its on the mark.

PapaDragon wrote:

Militarov wrote:

PapaDragon wrote:
Project 1234 Nanuchka-class missile ships (all of the ones in service, not just those two unfinished hulls that are also being redesigned) to receive Uran missiles (4x4, 16 in total) as part of overhaul and upgrade package, new engines as well, probably some other stuff like radars and whatnot...

https://eagle-rost.livejournal.com/717076.html

https://iz.ru/679884/nikolai-surkov-aleksei-ramm/ovodov-vooruzhili-uranom

Few of those are still NK-2s from late 70s from what i am aware, i would not waste my money on those but oh well...

Missiles, engines, radars, it's all off-the-shelf equipment that can be installed easy and quickly

Those old 70s boats still float no problem so might as well put them to work some more

IIRC only 2 are from the late 70s. All others are from the 80s.    I'd say upgrades of weapons and combat systems would be a wise move, and the result would be similar to the export 1242.1 Molniya (a Tarantul variant).



Is there any consideration for similar upgrades for Pr.1241/12411 Tarantuls?  AFAIK the RuN still has some 6/20 units in service (wiki info, so take with pinch of salt).  Second thoughts, the 12411s have SS-N-22 Moskit/Sunburns, so they have plenty of combat effectiveness left, so only the SS-N-2 equipped boats really need updating.

Some seized ex-Ukrainian boats may also be re-armed for the BSF. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_former_warships_of_the_Ukrainian_Navy#Vessels_captured
In any case, the older 1s will be used closer to home while the newer go farther out & support fleet deployments.

GunshipDemocracy wrote:

Militarov wrote:

PapaDragon wrote:
Project 1234 Nanuchka-class missile ships (all of the ones in service, not just those two unfinished hulls that are also being redesigned) to receive Uran missiles (4x4, 16 in total) as part of overhaul and upgrade package, new engines as well, probably some other stuff like radars and whatnot...

https://eagle-rost.livejournal.com/717076.html

https://iz.ru/679884/nikolai-surkov-aleksei-ramm/ovodov-vooruzhili-uranom

Few of those are still NK-2s from late 70s from what i am aware, i would not waste my money on those but oh well...

so what would you do?

Wouldnt waste money to replace propulsion on 40 years old non-capital ship hulls ? Just update late 80s and up to 91 built hulls and thats it.

PapaDragon wrote:

Militarov wrote:

PapaDragon wrote:
Project 1234 Nanuchka-class missile ships (all of the ones in service, not just those two unfinished hulls that are also being redesigned) to receive Uran missiles (4x4, 16 in total) as part of overhaul and upgrade package, new engines as well, probably some other stuff like radars and whatnot...

https://eagle-rost.livejournal.com/717076.html

https://iz.ru/679884/nikolai-surkov-aleksei-ramm/ovodov-vooruzhili-uranom

Few of those are still NK-2s from late 70s from what i am aware, i would not waste my money on those but oh well...

Missiles, engines, radars, it's all off-the-shelf equipment that can be installed easy and quickly

Those old 70s boats still float no problem so might as well put them to work some more

Can and should are two different terms. Any WW2 escort cruiser could be kept afloat and updated to this day I just wouldnt waste scarce money on brown water ships built pre 1985. just for sake of it.

Militarov wrote:

Can and should are two different terms. Any WW2 escort cruiser could be kept afloat and updated to this day I just wouldnt waste scarce money on brown water ships built pre 1985. just for sake of it.

The age matter only from maintenance cost standpoint.
Simple calculation.

I was thinking the same...they must be in a relatively good condition

Militarov wrote:

GunshipDemocracy wrote:

Militarov wrote:

PapaDragon wrote:
Project 1234 Nanuchka-class missile ships (all of the ones in service, not just those two unfinished hulls that are also being redesigned) to receive Uran missiles (4x4, 16 in total) as part of overhaul and upgrade package, new engines as well, probably some other stuff like radars and whatnot...

https://eagle-rost.livejournal.com/717076.html

https://iz.ru/679884/nikolai-surkov-aleksei-ramm/ovodov-vooruzhili-uranom

Few of those are still NK-2s from late 70s from what i am aware, i would not waste my money on those but oh well...

so what would you do?

Wouldnt waste money to replace propulsion on 40 years old non-capital ship hulls ? Just update late 80s and up to 91 built hulls and thats it.

So time constrains and intl situation (aka probability of war) do not exist in your world? Hmm interesting so what in short perspective like 1-2 years would you build? 14 Nanuchka hulls and 26 Tatantul different modifications. Can you build in 1-3 years 4 ships to replace them?

Cyberspec wrote:I was thinking the same...they must be in a relatively good condition

16 Kh-35in Baltic or Black Sea kicks ass.

GunshipDemocracy wrote:

Militarov wrote:

GunshipDemocracy wrote:

Militarov wrote:

PapaDragon wrote:
Project 1234 Nanuchka-class missile ships (all of the ones in service, not just those two unfinished hulls that are also being redesigned) to receive Uran missiles (4x4, 16 in total) as part of overhaul and upgrade package, new engines as well, probably some other stuff like radars and whatnot...

https://eagle-rost.livejournal.com/717076.html

https://iz.ru/679884/nikolai-surkov-aleksei-ramm/ovodov-vooruzhili-uranom

Few of those are still NK-2s from late 70s from what i am aware, i would not waste my money on those but oh well...

so what would you do?

Wouldnt waste money to replace propulsion on 40 years old non-capital ship hulls ? Just update late 80s and up to 91 built hulls and thats it.

So time constrains and intl situation (aka probability of war)  do not exist in your world? Hmm interesting so what in short perspective   like 1-2 years would you build?  14 Nanuchka hulls and 26 Tatantul different modifications. Can you build in 1-3 years  4 ships to replace them?

Which war now ?

And you are still not reading what i wrote, everyone picks up what they want.

"Just update late 80s and up to 91 built hulls and thats it."

Militarov wrote:

Which war now ?

And you are still not reading what i wrote, everyone picks up what they want.

"Just update late 80s and up to 91 built hulls and thats it."

Ask Russian command why they are speeding fo much with updating equipment. looks like know something we dont.
As for Nanuchkas - according to wiki only 2 are form 79. Rest is  87-92  

Fine, don't upgrade those from the 70s, doesn't matter, just please don't start another VTOL/carrier circlejerk OK?

I just posted some news about upgrade plans, no need to make new drama over fraction of ships to be upgraded.


Now actual question: looks like there is enough room on that deck for 3 Uran containers on each side instead of 2.

Any reason why not to install 3? Launch vibrations? Container weight? Accessibility?

How much does loaded Uran launcher weigh anyway?

PapaDragon wrote:Now actual question: looks like there is enough room on that deck for 3 Uran containers on each side instead of 2.

Any reason why not to install 3? Launch vibrations? Container weight? Accessibility?

How much does loaded Uran launcher weigh anyway?

I would say all of the above.

I don't know the actual weight of the launcher but it would be a significant consideration I think

PapaDragon wrote:
Fine, don't upgrade those from the 70s, doesn't matter, just please don't start another VTOL/carrier circlejerk OK?

I just posted some news about upgrade plans, no need to make new drama over fraction of ships to be upgraded.


Now actual question: looks like there is enough room on that deck for 3 Uran containers on each side instead of 2.

Any reason why not to install 3? Launch vibrations? Container weight? Accessibility?

How much does loaded Uran launcher weigh anyway?

Looking at the Tarantul-class, 2 per side should be easy.





Heck, the Nanuchka has a larger beam and can hold over a 100 tons more fully loaded so 3 per side may also be an option, or it could also be modified with the Club-U (external version of the UKSK).

GunshipDemocracy wrote:

KiloGolf wrote:
Bad news, they are running out of money. They'll spend 2.8 trillion local money next year, down from 3.1 this year.

In USD they're spending as much as Japan  

suspicious silence on naval vessels (they said 300 vessels whatever that means, probably includes lifeboats, rafts and RHIBs).

chicken Little - "sky is falling? "

not as Japan but ~ 80 bln USD comparing PPP , second is that some budgeting for military complex is form different pocket.  Besides I guess all procurement systems improved, many factories were rebuilt so probably 2,8 blns should be enough.

I did not hear about silence? they still are building corvettes MRKs and patroll boats,still subs.  In short platforms to launch so called precision weapons.

As was already pointed out: what Russian spends in dollars on its military is literally irrelevant.

The 2.8 trillion was known for years at this point, it's not "news" in any way. And indeed, that probably isn't even the whole military spending... 3% of GDP on the military in the long term is still high and the obvious and correct thing to do.

Some of KiloGolfs comments are just really... uniformed. Russia is running out of money, when budget deficit is non-existent and economy is growing. Russia doesn't have more "air superiority" fighters than Israel, except that it does, Russian Pacific Fleet needs to fight against both the Japanese and South Korean Navies in the opean ocean at the same time...

Also, Russia's PPP military spending isn't actually $80 billion. It's closer to something like $120-150 billion! Russian PPP GDP is not 2 times higher than its nominal, it's closer to something like 3.5x.

Kimppis wrote:

GunshipDemocracy wrote:

KiloGolf wrote:
Bad news, they are running out of money. They'll spend 2.8 trillion local money next year, down from 3.1 this year.

In USD they're spending as much as Japan  

suspicious silence on naval vessels (they said 300 vessels whatever that means, probably includes lifeboats, rafts and RHIBs).

chicken Little - "sky is falling? "

not as Japan but ~ 80 bln USD comparing PPP , second is that some budgeting for military complex is form different pocket.  Besides I guess all procurement systems improved, many factories were rebuilt so probably 2,8 blns should be enough.

I did not hear about silence? they still are building corvettes MRKs and patroll boats,still subs.  In short platforms to launch so called precision weapons.

As was already pointed out: what Russian spends in dollars on its military is literally irrelevant.

The 2.8 trillion was known for years at this point, it's not "news" in any way. And indeed, that probably isn't even the whole military spending... 3% of GDP on the military in the long term is still high and the obvious and correct thing to do.

Some of KiloGolfs comments are just really... uniformed. Russia is running out of money, when budget deficit is non-existent and economy is growing. Russia doesn't have more "air superiority" fighters than Israel, except that it does, Russian Pacific Fleet needs to fight against both the Japanese and South Korean Navies in the opean ocean at the same time...

Also, Russia's PPP military spending isn't actually $80 billion. It's closer to something like $120-150 billion! Russian PPP GDP is not 2 times higher than its nominal, it's closer to something like 3.5x.

I wouldn't mind if this is the PPP coefficient but IMHO you are a bit too optimistic. As for KiloGolf - cool lad but I wish i could smoke same shit for the weekend

Why? I'd argue Russian military is probably atleast as strong as UK, France and Germany combined. Over $100 billion makes perfect sense.

The combined dollar spending of maybe $150 billion gets those 3 countries... 500K (?) men, 600-800 MBTs, little artillery, comparatively weak IADS, around 12 destroyers, 12 SSNs, 6 diesel subs, only a few small warships (below frigates, they do have a decent number of frigates combined) that are weakly armed, exactly how many long-range cruise missiles?, and maybe 700 "fighters", no bombers, 200 (?) attack helicopters that are AFAIK comparatively lightly armed... That's less than Russia.

What, you seriously think the US military is 9 times stronger than Russia's? That's what $80 billion would mean. I'm trying to compare them more directly, hence $150 billion, which if anything is too low as well.

This is a little off-topic, but China's "$150 billion" is a total joke too... I'm not kidding when I say it could be as high as $460 billion. 1. China PPP GDP is 23 trillion, 2. China probably spends 2% of its GDP on defence, not the official 1.3% or whatever... Well, that's $460 billion. Doesn't sounds ridiculous at all when you actually look at the overall size of their military and what they are doing with it, especially with surface ships and when you consired that the US spending is... close to $700 billion?. Their naval build-up is very impressive. China is building atleast 5 (!!) Type 055 cruiser simultaneously, and that doesn't even include god knows how many Type 052Ds, among other things.

1. USA $650 billion
2. China $300-450 billion
3. Russia $150-200 billion
4. India $80-100 (India is problematic, its domestic MIC is comparatively weak and corruption and other similar issues have to be a massive problem)

The comparison doesn't make too much sense.

It is better to calculate the actual effectiveness to make weapons or to do military actions / achieve targets.


Say a Su-34 cost 1-1.1 billion rubel, an f-18 cost 60-70 million $ .

If you divide the military spending in rubel and $ then you can compare the weapon making capacity of the economy.



Other measure is to calculate the number of military casualties.

During the 2 WW Germany GNP was was much as the CCCP, with half of the population.

The military causalities of the CCCP was about twice as much as the military death of Germany.


Considering that the SU performance was degradation due to strategical reasons ( Germany attacked them) , and quickly destroyed big part of the economy of the CCCP, the real economical performance per head was somewhere between 50-100 % compared to Germany.

I think today it is more likely close to each other.

So you don't disagree? I don't quite understand. That's what PPP takes into account, different price levels.

Something like that. I think the ratio might have actually been lower than 2:1. Also you have to include German allies and their casualties: Finland, Hungary, Romania, Italy, Slovakia...

The current Russian PPP GDP per capita is around 60-70% of Germany's. Education levels are probably pretty much identical, as is nutrition. Back in the 40s the average Russian/Soviet was probably still a little bit "inferior" (but only modestly, the situation was clearly better than during WW1), because there had been famines and civil wars quite recently and things like full literacy were achieved later than in Germany.

Guys please go back on topic, budget discussion is in different tread....

Upgrading older vessels to be using newer missiles and radar as well as SAM systems are ideal. If they can fit some of the older ships with UKSK and modernization of the radar, it will breath a lot of new life into the vessels.