Russian Navy: Status & News #4

Still, there r more than 1 kind of a "blue water navy". The VMF is still mostly coastal & green water navy in the 7 closed/semi closed seas (out of 13) around the RF, with some global reach, as far as its surface ships r concerned.
With bigger icebreakers for round-year Arctic navigation, it'll be "white water navy" for the remaining 6 seas there.

PapaDragon wrote:

Tsavo Lion wrote:Up to 2020, Russia is likely to operate 5 out of 20 new nuclear submarines, 4 of 14 small missile ships

I am not saying that surface fleet isn't a joke but this part about submarines it complete BS.

2020 is less than 2 years away. It takes over a year to build nuclear submarine. So what are they trying to say here?

And where did they get those ''target'' numbers anyway?

There are 3 Borei A laid down in 2014/2015 that are expected to enter service in 2019/2020 which is possible since first borei A needed 5 years for its construction. Last laid down was in 2016 and is expected to enter service in 2021.

Same for Yasen 5 laid down, two are expected to enter service by 2020 and the 3 other after.


So it is 5 new subs to be put into service by 2020.

In all there are 5 yasen and 5 borei in construction which is 10 nuclear sub + those being upgraded +the ones already in service should make 20 nuclear subs. Those upgraded are not new however or won't be finished by 2020.

Wiki is my source.

An Tu-142 flew over the NATO ships in Norway.

Not 1, but 2 of them: https://www.almasdarnews.com/article/two-russian-long-range-tu-142-planes-fly-over-nato-drills/

Also, Russia’s largest nuclear missile-cruiser sails for Barents Sea combat training On Saturday, “Pyotr Velikiy” sailed out to the Barents Sea to exercise together with the air force and air defense.

Sould be a dedicated ship, not a destroyer. A large airship flying a few hundred metres above the water would be a large target and give away the destroyer and maybe the position of other ship in the task force.

Actually I would say it would depend on the design... a smaller type should have a dedicated support vessel but you really don't want it to be a civilian vessel... a destroyer type would be best as it could defend itself... worst case scenario it could jettison the blimp, but I see no reason why it could not release the airship to fly to any height you wanted... it would certainly never be operating a few hundred metres above anything... a 5km minimum operating height...

A big nuclear powered 170 ton payload airship and it could attack to a major ship but would actually operate most of the time on its own and at very extreme heights.

It could securely transmit data via directional microwave beam to ships and aircraft.

The fact is that any AWACS platform will give away its position simply by scanning the air space with radar... it needs to do that simply to do its job, but it really only tells you there is an airship there... it is operating with a single corvette, or an entire carrier task force... or is it on its own on its way to meet up with a carrier group?

It could have its own weather radar and easily avoid storms by flying around them or over them... there are no storms at 20km altitude...

A normal freighter could be used. Flying high enough, with a big radar, the airship could locate targets 800 or 1000km away. The task force could keep a distance of a few hundred kilometres and still be good informed.

A big airship size could operate above the weather and provide target information for enormous distances around the surface group...

I think the issue would be rather how to protect it from attacks or bad weather, being so big. Surface groups are continuously monitored and cannot expect to "hide" anywhere. Russia for instance has the Legend system for that purpose. And then you have subs, OTH and so many other ways of detecting and tracking those big vessels!

Having it operate at 20-30km altitude makes it pretty safe from most things and also protects it from the weather... there are no storms at that altitude.

Carrier groups are unlikely to be invisible, but protecting that carrier group and for the carrier commander to operate that carrier group he needs good information on everything in the air space and sea surface around the area he is operating.., this airship can at least provide 24/7 coverage of the air space around his carrier group... perhaps out to 1,000s of kms... what is not to like?

Even if you managed to get close to such an airship and hit it with a Phoenix AAM it wont damage enough internal air bags to destroy the airship... the loss of lift would make it descend but at that altitude nothing would burn properly... not enough oxygen for a start and the materials would be non flammable materials like carbon fibre and nomex.

Or a really big airship operating alone. There were plans for massive ones carrying 500 tons or more. Such a flying whale could carry a big radar plus ELINT/SIGINT systems. And you could add some Pantsir systems for self defense.

There is enormous potential...

Biggest plus is that the can stay in the air for weeks. In a few years even month. Even if they are slow and vulnerable in wartime, during peaceful times they could ease the workload of AWACS/recon planes.

An airship can be just as fast as most ships, so it is not a huge issue... but the payoff is the ability to hover over a carrier group for months at a time without refuelling or taking up deck space on a carrier, yet potentially having enormous volume for radar antenna of all types... you could even drop a 2km long cable for ULF communications with submarines.

And ease pinpointing a carrier group's location. I don't think airships & CBGs mix well, otherwise the USN & RFN would have worked on it by now.

Wow... this guy really just lays it all bare!
To say he paints a gloomy picture is waaaay more than putting it nicely.

Fleet without ships. Russian Navy on the verge of collapse

Excellent, raw and informative. He really spells it out as it is and holds back no punches. This is the sort of analysis those in authority need to urgently take heed of pronto and chart a requisite path forward. One thing is for sure; the navy cannot in the foreseeable future even hope to match its adversaries pound for pound. Imaginative and innovative strategies to defend the country in the sea theatre must be urgently developed, thinking outside the box as they say. For the years to come, Russia must completely redefine the role of its navy, by sheer necessity alone, and adopt unconventional, asymmetrical means of operating in this theatre. That may certainly prove impossible for a stubbornly conservative establishment that might be unable to adapt to changed realities.

slasher wrote:Wow... this guy really just lays it all bare!
To say he paints a gloomy picture is waaaay more than putting it nicely.

Fleet without ships. Russian Navy on the verge of collapse
.............

Is this honestly a surprise to anyone?

One thing is for sure; the navy cannot in the foreseeable future even hope to match its adversaries pound for pound.

They know it & don't even try to do that! Being #2 is a step below #1.
As Suvorov said: not with #s, but with ability!

slasher wrote:Wow... this guy really just lays it all bare!
To say he paints a gloomy picture is waaaay more than putting it nicely.

Fleet without ships. Russian Navy on the verge of collapse

Excellent, raw and informative. He really spells it out as it is and holds back no punches. This is the sort of analysis those in authority need to urgently take heed of pronto and chart a requisite path forward. One thing is for sure; the navy cannot in the foreseeable future even hope to match its adversaries pound for pound. Imaginative and innovative strategies to defend the country in the sea theatre must be urgently developed, thinking outside the box as they say. For the years to come, Russia must completely redefine the role of its navy, by sheer necessity alone, and adopt unconventional, asymmetrical means of operating in this theatre. That may certainly prove impossible for a stubbornly conservative establishment that might be unable to adapt to changed realities.

What an exercise in paid-for fuktardishness and 5th-column bias & disinfo. Excellent, raw and informative?? His paymasters (Atlantic Council perhaps) will no doubt be pleased with what their coin has purchased...

I could spend an hour writing a response to this steaming pile of agenda-driven dog shit, but quite frankly I lack the interest. Muppets like this icking fudiot are paid to write this trash, and I'm not going do him the great honor of responding any further than the contempt I have already displayed.

and that attitude is the problem, the article makes some fair and accurate points and is right on things, in some areas its wrong.

But of course it's all "BS" because it states facts about the Russian navy, The fact is they are being choked on capable blue water surface ships and there is no real production going on for them in the foreseeable future all production has stalled regarding these types of ships but hey dismiss the truth because you don't like it.

That exactly how you solve problems by pretending they aren't there~

Tsavo Lion wrote:

One thing is for sure; the navy cannot in the foreseeable future even hope to match its adversaries pound for pound.

They know it & don't even try to do that! Being #2 is a step below #1.
As Suvorov said: not with #s, but with ability!

#3

China is 2.

I know, but Putin wants it to be #2. But it's all relative & may not be that relevant. The US has the NATO Naval Standing Force Group 2 at its disposal around Europe,etc. to step in while most the USN is engaged elsewhere. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standing_NATO_Maritime_Group_2

In the Asia-Pacific, the RCN, JMSDF, RAN, ROCN, & IN can assist the USN 7th fleet. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Canadian_Navy#Fleet

The tone of the article is not realistic. Is totally out of touch.

Russia has a competent Navy that solved the operation in Syria without problems.

Russia is completing the reduction of its combat fleet after the end of the Soviet Union, reaching a fleet of stable size.

Russia is completing a new generation of solid modern designs for every type of warship and auxiliary ship.

Russia is building ships at the necessary rythm today and is preparing to increase the rythm of commissions by the 2030s, that is when will be needed.

Modernization and upgrades of the current ships are positive and necessary. Russia has new weapons that must be integrated in the ships, better sooner than later.

And even Russia begins to modernize older designs in order to finish the units in production not completed after the end of the Soviet Union.

Finally, Russia continues the reduction of its auxiliary fleet, scrapping the exhausted auxiliary ships, that in a good part require not replacement.

Russia is doing right.

Russian navy had no problems in Syria.....? they had tons of them, ask their carrier how that went.

Having designs on paper means nothing only when the ships are built does it become something.

Their Modernizations half the time do not solve any problems and merely put the already outdated gear back on ships.

They modernize stuff so dam slow.

This is why no one takes you seriously all those statements are so out of touch with reality it baffling.

Pro-US readers love to read about collapse and lots of drama, but this is not realistic. Sincerely I think you have enough taking care of your own credit.

In every deployment are some problems, are accidents, are things broken and repairs, but Russia solved all it fairly well, until to achieve significant victories.

The alone categories of combat and auxiliary ships where Russia has not ships of modern projects totally completed are:

- Warship <500 tons: Project 12300
- SSAN: Project 09851
- Auxiliary Cable-Laying: Project 15310
- Warship >10000 tons: Project 23560
- Warship aircraft carrier: Project 23000

In the 3 first cases the first unit has been laid down time ago and are likely near the launch.
In the case of the Project 23560 the preliminary project was approved by April 2017. Since then the phase of technical project, that includes the construction of the first unit, is ongoing, and very likely the lay down of the first unit will be soon.
In the case of the Project 23000 (and some potential unknown alternative) the preliminary project will be in the hands of the Ministry of Defense for examination by the end of 2018. Next steps are approval of the selected option, and begin of the technical project with the construction of the first unit.

At this point Russia even has ships completed of some modern projects that are redundant.

Russia is building and modernizing ships at the rythm they want. Slow rythms of production and modernization mean low number of workers assigned per ship and this is not bad by itself. We know most of the Russian shipyards come from the time of the WWII, and are giant, to attend needs of war time. We know that it allows to Russia to mantain big number of ships under construction and modernization and we know that the Russian shipyards are working in peace time very far of their full capability, but neither it is bad by itself. Instead, Russia takes advantage of it.

If I would have to make some improvement in the refered to the rythms of production and modernization, I would accelerate the production of the first unit of the new aircraft carrier. The projects which first unit is not completed by the end of 2025 likely will fall to the next geneartion of armament.

The allegued chaos and drama in the situation of the Russian Navy and the Russian shipyards is more noise than other thing. In every factory there are problems every day, the problems with Ukraine forced to introduce changes and to modify timelines, in some cases delaying and in other cases accelerating, but the rythm of deliveries is basically the rythm needed by the Russian Navy, not lower.

С понтом под зонтом, а сам под дождем- s pontom pod zontom, a sam pod dozdem! It's an expression of distrust in what has been said. They r modernizing many ships & subs that otherwise would be scrapped, had they been able to build new 1s on schedule & on budget!
In contrast, since 1991, despite all the ongoing local wars & deployments, the USN deactivated a CVN, decommissioned 9 CGNs, 5 CGs, 27 SSNs & dozens of many other ships:  
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Enterprise_(CVN-65)#Decommissioning
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_powered_cruisers_of_the_United_States_Navy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ticonderoga-class_cruiser#Ships_in_class
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Los_Angeles-class_submarines#Summary_by_status
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kidd-class_destroyer#Ships_in_class
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spruance-class_destroyer#Decommissioning
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_frigates_of_the_United_States_Navy#Knox-class_FF
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_frigates_of_the_United_States_Navy#Oliver_Hazard_Perry-class_FFG
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarawa-class_amphibious_assault_ship#Decommissioning_and_replacement
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iowa-class_battleship#Ships

Excluding SSBNs, all of the above could form a fleet larger than the corresponding classes in the active VMF!

Early scrapping only makes sense for reduction of the fleet. Otherwise is a bad business in economical sense.

In the US, they build a lot of expensive high tech ships & subs that get decommissioned early not just to reduce the fleet, but mostly to make room for more expensive new ships & subs, incl. new classes, wasting a lot of $. Still, they can afford to do it!
In Russia, they build fewer & less advanced ships & subs, of more classes, wasting $ & time, & having to convert/modernize them to keep them active longer as there isn't much to replace them with.
Even though Russia doesn't need as many ships & subs as the USN has, her fleets r widely separated & need to be self-sustaining w/o having to depend so much on transfers between themselves.
Plus, her icebreaker fleet must be maintained, operated & renewed, not to mention the Coast Guard. It's an uphill battle!

Russia needs not to repeat every wrong thing done by the US.

Much has been said about the inefficiency of the Federation's shipyards, however this is something that's not going to be fixed overnight. I have a proposition in the meantime; why not create a tug-munition system? By that I mean create a system of self-contained munitions built on floating barges, that can be tugged behind existing ships to improve their firepower. A relatively simple yet effective quick solution, you could have set of floating barges with a multitude of different systems, like a barge with several dozen UKSK launchers, or another floating barge with several dozen Polymut-Redut launchers as well as ECM and decoys. Those munitions could be guided with existing sensors on the boat tugging them, or another floating barge could contain radars, electronic-optical sensors, command posts, etc. This in theory should only take a small fraction of the time to produce compared to the ships, and they should be easily fully modular, easily upgradeable.