Russian Navy: Status & News #4

The funding priority is the nuclear deterrent. Everything else gets sidelined.

And rightly so... which means priority is subs in the navy, but their capacity to carry ship launched cruise missiles gives many of the new ships Russia is making strategic nuclear capacity if they want that too... a useful and relatively cheap way to escalate the number of tactical nuclear weapons on the table for combat in europe or Japan...

IMO, they'll be dedicating substantial resources to non-nuclear precision arms while renewing SSBN & strategic bomber fleets.

Those precision weapons can give a weapon nuclear like potential without crossing the nuclear threshold, but they could just as easily be all armed with nukes too.

Then, CV/Ns r not urgent to have, UDKs will be built 1st, & the Adm. K will sailor on with new CMs for another 2 decades, if not more.

Even if CVNs were thought moderately important they need to finalise the design first and then lay it down and build it... current plans suggest 2023 as the earliest they could lay it down, so we are not talking about carrier in water before 2028 at the very best, so it would not be operational before 2032 even if everything goes to plan...

No new attacks subs or Kilos... nothing.

They have ordered Kilos but have also mentioned a large order of Ladas too...

Surely the Navy only needs a surface blue water fleet if it is intending to attack US carriers at sea. I thought the strike aircraft were for that task. As such, the submarines and frigates/corvettes are pretty much up to the task of nuclear deterrence and homeland defence. In many ways even the K is a brown water ship.

If the only purpose for Russia is to fight the US then I would agree they could only use a blue water fleet for fighting US carriers.

Russia has the weapons it needs to fight the US but unlike the US and the west it knows that will be its last fight, which makes it a fight to avoid rather than actively seek out and encourage.

Having a blue sea navy opens the entire globe to trade for Russia, trade that the US or its black hearted allies cannot or will choose not to interfere with.

A US carrier group could be best engaged with a Yasen SSN with 32 Zircon hypersonic anti ship missiles... or indeed upgrade Oscars with tube liners in their Granit tubes with 72 x Zircon missiles loaded or 72 x Onyx missiles loaded... or indeed 72 x 4,500km range land attack cruise missiles leading to US carrier groups all round the world being called back home to defend the motherland....

What exactly is mission of Russian surface navy?

I always assumed that it's purpose is to protect naval nuclear deterrent and keep tabs on economic zone.

Am I missing something?

Russian home defence can be easily performed by MiG-31s with Kinzhals... you have said as much yourself. SSBNs can launch attacks on the US from within Russian waters under Russian air cover and air support.

The future purpose of the Russian navy is to secure sea lines of communication and trade for Russia and her allies... it might include sending a corvette or frigate to deal with pirates, or it might involve sending PTG and the K to Venezuela on a good will visit... just after the US declares a naval blockade, which Russia denounces as illegal under international law. Who backs down becomes an interesting question, but who is going to trade with Russia if the US is just going to sanction them and then overthrow their democratically elected government... what if the US imposes more sanctions on North Korea and demands to inspect rail cars going into North Korea from Russia... at what point do you stand up to a bully?

PapaDragon wrote:
What exactly is mission of Russian surface navy?

I always assumed that it's purpose is to protect naval nuclear deterrent and keep tabs on economic zone.

Am I missing something?

The goal has always been projecting power far beyond your shores. We did that during the Soviet by having the largest fleet of nuclear attack subs that has ever existed. The Kremlin decided we could never afford to keep up with the carrier race with the US so the only way to operate safely was under the waves. We could go anywhere and destroy anything on or under the water.

Today the ambitions have to be scaled back. The plan was to model a blue water navy like France, one that was affordable yet powerful when needed and having a fleet of smaller vessels to monitor a large EEZ. The French have been able to maintain and upgrade this model, every time we try to get there something gets in the way to scuttle it.

If the only goal was to protect our shores from American carriers that could be solved by a powerful Air Force with a large amount of tankers.

French navy without US navy support is not powerfull, at least not against bigger countries with decent airforce, subs and anti ship missiles. Mostly build around the CdG which has no replacement if destroyed.

Russia needs to start quickly husky class and build 20 SSN and 5 or 6 SSGN (if they keep the oscars, if not 10 ssgn)

Isos wrote:French navy without US navy support is not powerfull, at least not against bigger countries with decent airforce, subs and anti ship missiles. Mostly build around the CdG which has no replacement if destroyed.

Russia needs to start quickly husky class and build 20 SSN and 5 or 6 SSGN (if they keep the oscars, if not 10 ssgn)

The French don't have it to attack bigger countries, they have it to attack smaller countries or terrorist states. If they are attacking a bigger country it would be part of a coalition and it works well for that too.

The days of trying to maintain the largest nuclear sub fleet are over. There is not much money left for conventional weapons. We must do procurement in a scaled back and rational way.

Vladimir79 wrote:The goal has always been projecting power far beyond your shores.  We did that during the Soviet by having the largest fleet of nuclear attack subs that has ever existed.  The Kremlin decided we could never afford to keep up with the carrier race with the US so the only way to operate safely was under the waves.  We could go anywhere and destroy anything on or under the water.  

Today the ambitions have to be scaled back.  The plan was to model a blue water navy like France, one that was affordable yet powerful when needed and having a fleet of smaller vessels to monitor a large EEZ.  The French have been able to maintain and upgrade this model, 

If the only goal was to protect our shores from American carriers that could be solved by a powerful Air Force with a large amount of tankers.    

I agree on almost everything just Id add that flag waving is important for political motives/PR.  
BTW reasonable aircraft carrying ships are planned. Sine MoD started VSTOL fighter project, to me looks like this will be closer to TAKR concept then 100ktons monster.
But we need to live to see. This year CV project competition should be finalized . Well see what vision o f blue water navy won.

V79 wrote: every time we try to get there something gets in the way to scuttle it.

IMHO not "something" but deliberate attack from west. Once Russia gets too independent west finds reason to attack with sanctions/info war. This is correlated to me.

The days of trying to maintain the largest nuclear sub fleet are over. There is not much money left for conventional weapons. We must do procurement in a scaled back and rational way.

A smaller more modern fleet is necessary, but fixed wing fighters and AWACS platforms will allow them to be smaller in number but no less capable and vulnerable.

A modern destroyer can have the firepower that in the 1980s only a Kirov cruiser could have and with balanced modern ships that are fully multirole you don't need 20 ship carrier groups.

BTW reasonable aircraft carrying ships are planned. Sine MoD started VSTOL fighter project, to me looks like this will be closer to TAKR concept then 100ktons monster.

Have repeatedly said 100K ton ships are not even in consideration, but you keep bringing them up as the only alternative.

The huge irony is that the multihull proposal is in the 40-45K ton range with a bigger deck and slightly bigger capacity than Kuznetsov... and right in the ball park of what the French currently have... my suggestion is either this with real STOL fighters or a 70K ton like the UK are building two of, but you keep claiming I am suggesting a Ford clone if it makes you feel big.

every time we try to get there something gets in the way to scuttle it.

The west is afraid of a strong independent Russia... and a strong independent China... in fact a strong independent anything they don't control.

It will just take a little longer.

Which is not to suggest there are no internal problems either... their corvettes seem rather good, and their frigates seem to be pretty good too, but getting production up will always be an issue, but the standardisation should help even if the multirole capacity makes them rather more complicated than previous small vessels they used to make.

there will be factions within the navy and the MIC wanting small carriers and VSTOL aircraft because if they work they might end up cheaper, and there will be others who think smaller is not always cheaper... especially if it is too small to get the job done.

You can get away with small like Mistral, because it is not small it is a big helicopter carrier... operating with a real carrier for real air support it is very capable and fully multirole... but thinking you can get away with just more small ships and use some as helicopter landing craft and some as mini carriers like the Hermes and Invincible... well they made it work but it didn't really work well and if you add the cost of the ships lost because they didn't have proper air control then you would probably do what they did and get rid of those little carriers and make your next carrier a 70K ton ship.

Other problem was lack of commitment to type of platform they want to build and constant change of plans and redesigns halfway through construction

The problem is that the people are so certain of what they really need like many members on this board can't really prove why their choice is right or better than any other choice... some are obviously wrong... tried before and rejected... the mini carrier with STOVL fighters, and the obvious 100K ton carriers with all the bells and whistles...

The real question seems to be do they go for 40K tons or 70 K tons... they already have the 55 K tons in the middle and seem to think it is not ideal.

Also, get ready for five pages of angry replies

Funny from the guy whose main complaint at my suggestion of slightly larger than the K (slightly larger than 55K ton) carriers is that they wont be able to take on all those thousands of US carrier based aircraft...

GarryB wrote:

The days of trying to maintain the largest nuclear sub fleet are over. There is not much money left for conventional weapons. We must do procurement in a scaled back and rational way.

A smaller more modern fleet is necessary, but fixed wing fighters and AWACS platforms will allow them to be smaller in number but no less capable and vulnerable.

A modern destroyer can have the firepower that in the 1980s only a Kirov cruiser could have and with balanced modern ships that are fully multirole you don't need 20 ship carrier groups.

BTW reasonable aircraft carrying ships are planned. Sine MoD started VSTOL fighter project, to me looks like this will be closer to TAKR concept then 100ktons monster.

Have repeatedly said 100K ton ships are not even in consideration, but you keep bringing them up as the only alternative.

The huge irony is that the multihull proposal is in the 40-45K ton range with a bigger deck and slightly bigger capacity than Kuznetsov... and right in the ball park of what the French currently have... my suggestion is either this with real STOL fighters or a 70K ton like the UK are building two of, but you keep claiming I am suggesting a Ford clone if it makes you feel big.

every time we try to get there something gets in the way to scuttle it.

The west is afraid of a strong independent Russia... and a strong independent China... in fact a strong independent anything they don't control.

It will just take a little longer.

Which is not to suggest there are no internal problems either... their corvettes seem rather good, and their frigates seem to be pretty good too, but getting production up will always be an issue, but the standardisation should help even if the multirole capacity makes them rather more complicated than previous small vessels they used to make.

there will be factions within the navy and the MIC wanting small carriers and VSTOL aircraft because if they work they might end up cheaper, and there will be others who think smaller is not always cheaper... especially if it is too small to get the job done.

You can get away with small like Mistral, because it is not small it is a big helicopter carrier... operating with a real carrier for real air support it is very capable and fully multirole... but thinking you can get away with just more small ships and use some as helicopter landing craft and some as mini carriers like the Hermes and Invincible... well they made it work but it didn't really work well and if you add the cost of the ships lost because they didn't have proper air control then you would probably do what they did and get rid of those little carriers and make your next carrier a 70K ton ship.

Other problem was lack of commitment to type of platform they want to build and constant change of plans and redesigns halfway through construction

The problem is that the people are so certain of what they really need like many members on this board can't really prove why their choice is right or better than any other choice... some are obviously wrong... tried before and rejected... the mini carrier with STOVL fighters, and the obvious 100K ton carriers with all the bells and whistles...

The real question seems to be do they go for 40K tons or 70 K tons... they already have the 55 K tons in the middle and seem to think it is not ideal.

Also, get ready for five pages of angry replies

Funny from the guy whose main complaint at my suggestion of slightly larger than the K (slightly larger than 55K ton) carriers is that they wont be able to take on all those thousands of US carrier based aircraft...

Evidently, there was technological progress in the way of miniaturisation of weapons` and electronics from 80s on, but, nobody can tell that 15.000ton hull is nowadays less combat protected and as vulnerable as 5.000ton hull!. Remember KNM Helge Ingstad case a couple of months ago! State of the art, very expensive, almost new warship was ripped open like a can and sank beyond repair due to silly mistake in navigation and communication. Yes I am a fan of big, armoured battleships of the past, but there are shipbuilding principles that are not to be neglected, no matter wnen, no matter how!

GB wrote:

The days of trying to maintain the largest nuclear sub fleet are over. There is not much money left for conventional weapons. We must do procurement in a scaled back and rational way.

A smaller more modern fleet is necessary, but fixed wing fighters and AWACS platforms will allow them to be smaller in number but no less capable and vulnerable.
A modern destroyer can have the firepower that in the 1980s only a Kirov cruiser could have and with balanced modern ships that are fully multirole you don't need 20 ship carrier groups.

True same  with downsizing CVNs. No need for 60-70 as 40 will do.

GB wrote:

BTW reasonable aircraft carrying ships are planned. Sine MoD started VSTOL fighter project, to me looks like this will be closer to TAKR concept then 100ktons monster.

The huge irony is that the multihull proposal is in the 40-45K ton range with a bigger deck and slightly bigger capacity than Kuznetsov... and right in the ball park of what the French currently have... my suggestion is either this with real STOL fighters or a 70K ton like the UK are building two of, but you keep claiming I am suggesting a Ford clone if it makes you feel big.

if you read my posts with understanding, not "forum rage" you'd see i am talking about 40-50ktons, 20-30 fighters  class which was os far ...dinky to you      
My only remark is - due to different set of tasks then US number of ASw helos could be increased sometime like Kuz originally. But drones could compensate of copurse.

GB wrote:Which is not to suggest there are no internal problems either... their corvettes seem rather good, and their frigates seem to be pretty good too, but getting production up will always be an issue, but the standardisation should help even if the multirole capacity makes them rather more complicated than previous small vessels they used to make.

there will be factions within the navy and the MIC wanting small carriers and VSTOL aircraft because if they work they might end up cheaper, and there will be others who think smaller is not always cheaper... especially if it is too small to get the job done.

(1) there will be no helo carriers which was already long time officially stated
(2) Cost effectiveness is measured according to Navy 2020-30 doctrine neither  Falklands 80' scenarios nor on 1940's midway ones.

GB wrote:The real question seems to be do they go for 40K tons or 70 K tons... they already have the 55 K tons in the middle and seem to think it is not ideal.

Because she is no CVN but conventionally powered TAKR and old with aging deck fighters ?

kumbor wrote: Evidently, there was technological progress in the way of miniaturisation of weapons` and electronics from 80s on, but, nobody can tell that 15.000ton hull is nowadays less combat protected and as vulnerable as 5.000ton hull!. Remember KNM Helge Ingstad case a couple of months ago! State of the art, very expensive, almost new warship was ripped open like a can and sank beyond repair due to silly mistake in navigation and communication. Yes I am a fan of big, armoured battleships of the past, but there are shipbuilding principles that are not to be neglected, no matter wnen, no matter how!

he he battleships in hypersonic missiles and tactical nukes... MAKE SENSE . BTW 1143  Kiev was built to sustain 30ktons explosion in 2 kms and...keep on fighting

Согласно существовавшим в то время требованиям противоатомной защиты, боеспособность корабля должна была сохраняться при воздушном взрыве 30-килотонного ядерного заряда на удалении 2000 м. При этом непотопляемость обеспечивалась при затоплении любых четырёх смежных отсеков (без учета ангара, где границей непотопляемости являлась 5-я палуба, и указанный показатель составлял три отсека)
+++
According to the requirements of anti-nuclear protection at that time, the ship’s combat capability was to be maintained with an air explosion of a 30-kiloton nuclear charge at a distance of 2000 m. At the same time, unsinkability was ensured when any four adjacent compartments were flooded (without taking into account the hangar, where , and this figure was three compartments).

.

and armored too

The presence on board the ASR "1143 Kiev" of completely numerous rocket, artillery and anti-submarine complexes, designed for solving various combat missions, is not typical for an aircraft carrier, predetermined a kind of "hybrid" type of ship architecture.

The system set the body along the entire length was longitudinal, in the extremities - transverse. The body and the two lower tiers of the 9-tier superstructure were made of AK- 25 steel (up to 30 mm thick) and AK -27 (over 35 mm) steel. The superstructure, starting from the 3rd tier and above, was made from AMg. All vertical surfaces of the superstructure, chimney and the hull itself were made inclined from the vertical (up to 10 °) in order to minimize the size of the radar field and, as a result, the visibility of the ship as a whole. It must be said that the decisions made then by the specialists of Nevsky PKB in some cases anticipated the technology of "stealth", to which so much attention is paid today in the West.

http://ship.bsu.by/ship/100000

Vladivostok. Main naval base of Russia's Pacific Fleet.



do we know which ship is that big at the left?

Krylov

The Russian Navy will receive more than 180 ships under the state armament program until 2027

https://dfnc.ru/c106-technika/vmf-rossii-poluchit-bolee-180-korablej-po-gosprogramme-vooruzheniya-do-2027-goda/

According to Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu , in 2019 15 ships and combat boats will arrive in the fleet, as well as 20 support vessels.

The navy of Russia until 2027 will receive more than 180 ships and vessels of new projects in accordance with the state armament program for 2018-2027. This was announced on Wednesday by Russian Defense Minister General of the Army Sergey Shoigu at the board

“Today’s meeting will begin with a discussion of the draft program“ Development of the berthing front of the basing points of the Navy until 2030. ”In accordance with the state armament program for 2018–2027, more than 180 ships and vessels of new projects should join the Navy ", - said Shoigu .

According to him, this year alone, 15 ships and combat boats will arrive in the fleet, as well as 20 support vessels.

"We are faced with the task of creating modern conditions for the parking and organization of all types of support for the newest nuclear missile submarines of the Yasen and Borey projects , multi-purpose frigates of the oceanic zone, ships equipped with long-range precision weapons, other ships and ships," the minister

He specified that for this purpose, the reconstruction of the existing and construction of new bases, in particular in Kaspiysk, is being carried out for the forces of the Caspian Flotilla.

Shoigu added that the draft program is aimed not only at the reconstruction of the berthing front and engineering infrastructure, but also optimization of the number of berths, which will significantly reduce the costs of their maintenance. “The program was prepared on the basis of budget funds allocated to the Ministry of Defense and will not require additional allocations,” the minister concluded.

Any idea on the class of ships involved , 180 seems big number to me

Austin wrote:Any idea on the class of ships involved , 180 seems big number to me

Small ones.

Isos wrote:

Austin wrote:Any idea on the class of ships involved , 180 seems big number to me

Small ones.

Can you please list few types and numbers of these types ?

Can you please list few types and numbers of these types ?

No reason for surprise, 180 ships means about 20 ships per year and this year alone they plan to launch 35. If you expect sudden cancelling of production of corvette projects, we'd be happy to see sources.

Destroyers Admiral Tributs and Admiral Vinogradov left Vladivostok for traditional Russo-Chinese drills "Joint sea 2019". Varyag will be joining them later alongside Admiral Gorshkov. The size of Russian delegation seems to be constant over the last 7 years (cruiser and 3 destroyers/frigates), the new thing however is that one of the ships doesn't come from Pacific fleet. Deployment of Northern fleet ship in the Pacific is an exceptional thing. It shows Russian desire for blue water power projection. The limitations of their capability in given theaters are to be mitigated with more flexibility, such as interfleet deployments. This confirms also official purpose of the drills, that is global peace and regional stability.

Another interesting implication is that the only destroyer class deployed will be class 1155 Fregat, as in the past previous 8 Joint sea drills since 2012. Absence of more aggressive class 956 Sarich with land-attack capability signals their defensive posture in the Pacific region. Russia is for now happy with the status of observer of naval Sino-US competition in the region.

https://function.mil.ru/news_page/country/more.htm?id=12223863%40egNews&utm_referrer=korabel.ru%2Fnews%2Fcomments%2Fkorabli_tof_v_hode_dalnego_pohoda_primut_v_uchastie_v_rossiysko-kitayskih_ucheniyah.html

Specially for this day, Russian harbour defence

Can´t be Russian. Gun is to small.

Today's Capt Navy's Twitter joke finally explained - it features Danish boat Alsin.

My dear friends and followers,
Congratulations on April Fools` day! ????May good jokes and sincere smiles fill this day and bring more positive emotions into your life! ????Remember that laughter is the best medicine!???????? pic.twitter.com/pMGA5XC1Zx

— Capt(N) (@Capt_Navy) 1 April 2019

The 'ALSIN' Y345. Frederikshavn.
Danish Navy Support Ship.
Transports a 76mm.

— Zwankendammeboorlink (@Ouagadougou1976) 1 April 2019

Some more details about Joint sea exercises are now published.

They will include joint maneuvering, organization of communications and practice of rocket and artillery firing to engage sea and air targets. Coastal, maritime and air force branches will participate.

Russian and Chinese admirals had a meeting last week, organizing the course of the exercises.

Specially for this day, Russian harbour defence

Not a Russian or Soviet gun turret... looks more Italian...