Russian Navy: Status & News #4

Isos wrote:Sorry. But isn't the "quote reply" automatically quoting only the part that the person we quote says and taking offwhat he quoted in its original message ?

Sometime, rarely actualy, it does that. Maybe its a bug but it would be a nice idea to do so.

No, this is a 20yr old BBS software, it is not that advanced.

PapaDragon wrote:
Ports are not expensive to maintain, fleet is

Russia has dumb habbit of putting all eggs in one basket, this is welcome change

When you click on quote reply it will put the post in a set of quote brackets around each quoted part.

When it does that just edit the text above your post and remove unneeded posts... it is not hard.

Each set of brackets will have the name of the person being quoted, so at the top of the message box in this case I replied to PapaDragons post so there is this list of quotes:

{quote="PapaDragon"}{quote="Isos"}{quote="PapaDragon"}{quote="Isos"}{quote="hoom"}

Note I changed the square brackets to squiggly brackets so you can see them... in this case I am replying to PDs post and don't need to include the other comments so I leave the {quote="PapaDragon"} at the front and delete everything from there down to the second last {/quote}, which in this case leaves:

{quote="PapaDragon"}
Ports are not expensive to maintain, fleet is

Russia has dumb habbit of putting all eggs in one basket, this is welcome change{/quote}

at the top of my message to reply... again I use {} so you can see what I am talking about but the actual brackets are the square ones... to see what it looks like with square brackets, look at the top of this message.

If anyone still doesn't understand feel free to ask for more clarity on the forum technical issues thread.

It has been being developed since 2003 as a new primary BSF base since Ukraine had indicated they wouldn't renew the Sevastopol lease which was due to expire in 2017.

It's actually good to have two bases in that region. After Georgian and Ukrainian crises it had to be stabilized. Nevertheless, it seems that Russians intend to operate 2 subs from Sevastopol, despite assigning all 4 Black sea based to Novorossiysk. It looks like 6 Bykov class corvettes will be the main surface ships of the new base, in addition to minesweppers. Now it's just the question when the heck will the second boat be commisioned. It's been on trials since last year and even participating in actual operations with other ships. Unless there are problems or they have to test additional equipment that is not on the first boat, it's unclear why it takes so long. Back in December they were saying it was delayed just for one month (=till January).

Ships under construction for Russia. Not that bad actually.

Isos wrote:Ships under construction for Russia. Not that bad actually.

And this are "only" the armed ships. There are a lot of support ships of all sizes/flavors being built.

Isos wrote:Ships under construction for Russia. Not that bad actually.

It is actually quite bad as most of them are backlogged waiting for engines and or funds for completion.

Vladimir79 wrote:

Isos wrote:Ships under construction for Russia. Not that bad actually.

It is actually quite bad as most of them are backlogged waiting for engines and or funds for completion.

That's good actually for you. Before you were totally dependant on germany and ukraine for engines. Now you will be able to make your ships 100% russian.

The past 5 years were hard for RuN but that's the past. On the other hand german and ukrainian compabies lost a big client.

Since you have all those ships waiting for engine that will oblige you companies to work hard to make engines and once they make them your navy will get all the ships you see here in one time which will drasticaly boost your power.

Isos wrote:

Vladimir79 wrote:

Isos wrote:Ships under construction for Russia. Not that bad actually.

It is actually quite bad as most of them are backlogged waiting for engines and or funds for completion.

That's good actually for you. Before you were totally dependant on germany and ukraine for engines.....

Unless you miss USSR, in that case nothing will ever be good enough

Vladimir79 wrote:

Isos wrote:Ships under construction for Russia. Not that bad actually.

It is actually quite bad as most of them are backlogged waiting for engines and or funds for completion.

Which ones besides Karakurts and Buyans?

Isos wrote:
That's good actually for you. Before you were totally dependant on germany and ukraine for engines. Now you will be able to make your ships 100% russian.

The past 5 years were hard for RuN but that's the past. On the other hand german and ukrainian compabies lost a big client.

Since you have all those ships waiting for engine that will oblige you companies to work hard to make engines and once they make them your navy will get all the ships you see here in one time which will drasticaly boost your power.

How is it good for me to have a fleet of vessels rusting away at the wharf? How is it good for the ships to run under-powered engines that do not meet the needs of the Navy if and when they get them?

The loss of Ukraine from the MIC should have been factored beforehand. To design these ships with German MTUs in mind was crazy. Did they really think they would maintain technical cooperation with us?

Yes, we should crack the whip and tell these people to stop wasting our money. I am just glad the state no longer rewards incompetence and laziness with payments.

By you I mean Russia. Don't take it personnaly

That's why I say it is good. It will just oblige your MIC to produce everything from now by themselve at good standards. If they don't ships will die at port so MOD will pressure them to finish.

First engines won't meet requirements but second generation will and then you will be totally independant.

It's a big investement thanks to US sanctions. If you were not sanctioned and not obliged to design your own engines, you will be still buying german and your domestic projects would be done slowly and probably be stoped before completetion.

Isos wrote:By you I mean Russia. Don't take it personnaly

That's why I say it is good. It will just oblige your MIC to produce everything from now by themselve at good standards. If they don't ships will die at port so MOD will pressure them to finish.

First engines won't meet requirements but second generation will and then you will be totally independant.

It's a big investement thanks to US sanctions. If you were not sanctioned and not obliged to design your own engines, you will be still buying german and your domestic projects would be done slowly and probably be stoped before completetion.

He isn't even in Russia.....

miketheterrible wrote:
He isn't even in Russia.....

... and yet I still pay taxes to it.

Isos wrote:By you I mean Russia. Don't take it personnaly

That's why I say it is good. It will just oblige your MIC to produce everything from now by themselve at good standards. If they don't ships will die at port so MOD will pressure them to finish.

First engines won't meet requirements but second generation will and then you will be totally independant.

It's a big investement thanks to US sanctions. If you were not sanctioned and not obliged to design your own engines, you will be still buying german and your domestic projects would be done slowly and probably be stoped before completetion.

The fleet structure and industrial policy is completely wrong.  We should have invested everything into a long line of 22350s, 24 in total to form the basis of the surface fleet.  Corvettes with high end weapons are a waste of tonnage and expense that cannot project power in blue water.  They should be centered around two nuclear carriers with the full capabilities of CATOBAR and 6 LPHs to project naval infantry.  Let the FSB patrol the EEZ and invest in a blue water navy. We have so many projects of corvettes it is just a waste of resources.  We need commonality among the fleet to make logistics and servicing easier and cheaper. Have one corvette, one frigate, one LPH and one carrier class... with everything we have spent maintaining the old, we could have built all of this new.

Vladimir79 wrote:..... We should have invested everything into a long line of 22350s,

You did... and then bet the bank on Ukrainian loyalty.

Lord Darwin has no favorites.

Vladimir79 wrote:.....Corvettes with high end weapons are a waste of tonnage and expense that cannot project power in blue water.  

And what would you do once you are in that precious blue water?

There is no more ideology to enforce, no more clients (ungrateful ones I might add) to protect, no trade lanes you use that need controlling and no resources you don't have at home already.

All your enemies are are right next door in Europe and maybe (big maybe) across Sea of Japan. And none of them require blue water navy to deal with.

Vladimir79 wrote:.....They should be centered around two nuclear carriers with the full capabilities of CATOBAR

USSR at the apex of it's might could not come close to having even a single nuclear carrier even with that insane suicidal military budget.

They could barely build and operate helicopter carriers.

How on Earth do you expect Russia to have one especially on a budget not compiled by by geriatric commies with 8 years of elementary school? And I mean that as a compliment. Remember what killed USSR?

Vladimir79 wrote:.....Let the FSB patrol the EEZ and invest in a blue water navy.

Russia is not USA, you are not flanked by two oceans and not bordered by two glorified provinces.

Having Coast Guard (FSB) patrol EEZ is a luxury that USA has but you don't, never had and never will.

Vladimir79 wrote:.....We have so many projects of corvettes it is just a waste of resources.  

Corvettes is what you can build and more importantly what you need.

And even that is a stretch.

All this hassle with building corvettes and people want carriers?

It's like wanting to have a Lamborghini when you can barely pay for and build a tricycle. All the while living next to dirt road...

Vladimir79 wrote:..... with everything we have spent maintaining the old, we could have built all of this new.

No you couldn't.

Navy was swimming in cash until recently and all they managed to build were those hated corvettes.

No matter how much money you dump on carriers you will always be 3rd rate in that department, that is if you don't bankrupt yourselves (again) first.

And even if you build one (fat chance) what will you use it for? Fly airplanes around potential hostiles which are all within range of land based aviation?

More money down the latrine...

The fleet structure and industrial policy is completely wrong.  We should have invested everything into a long line of 22350s, 24 in total to form the basis of the surface fleet.  Corvettes with high end weapons are a waste of tonnage and expense that cannot project power in blue water.  They should be centered around two nuclear carriers with the full capabilities of CATOBAR and 6 LPHs to project naval infantry.  Let the FSB patrol the EEZ and invest in a blue water navy. We have so many projects of corvettes it is just a waste of resources.  We need commonality among the fleet to make logistics and servicing easier and cheaper. Have one corvette, one frigate, one LPH and one carrier class... with everything we have spent maintaining the old, we could have built all of this new.

Well this totally depends on what Russia plans to do in the next century. Having such navy means you want to invade countries.

Military speaking Russia doesn't even need a navy since they have 5000 nuks, neither an army. No one will dare to attack them (specially if the only weapons you have are your nuks).

Russia send 4 su-35 and 12 su-24 and 2 corvettes in Syria before NATO send anything and the world knew Assad was the winner the next day.

The thing is that with the 4 su-35, 12 su-24 and 2 corvettes they can still destroy the world. As long as this is true Russia won't need a huge navy.

But if you want to control Africa and some south american countries, then you need carriers and 24 Gorshkovs. But USA will always have more money and more military tools to make that almost impossible. Like in Venezuela for exemple.

Edit: 4 smaller nuclear carrier would improve such navy rather than only two. With your shipbuilding slow repairs you can bet that both would end up in drydock for a long time togather. With 4 of them you can always have one ready and at sea 1 can cover the other one and if ones is destroyed you have the second one. Supercarrier are divas nothing more.

PapaDragon wrote:

You did... and then bet the bank on Ukrainian loyalty.

Lord Darwin has no favorites.

No we didn't.  The BFS and Caspian commanders were whining about the state of their fleet so in order to reequip them money was diverted to corvette projects.  The biggest drain on resources was on the nuclear deterrence but that had to be paid for, corvettes did not.  

There is no more ideology to enforce, no more clients (ungrateful ones I might add) to protect, no trade lanes you use that need controlling and no resources you don't have at home already.

All your enemies are are right next door in Europe and maybe (big maybe) across Sea of Japan. And none of them require blue water navy to deal with.

And yet we are in Venezuela, Syria, Vietnam... ect.  We must be able to keep the sea lanes open if war breaks out.  Corvettes will not do.

Attack is the secret of defence; defence is the planning of an attack. - Sun Tzu

USSR at the apex of it's might could not come close to having even a single nuclear carrier even with that insane suicidal military budget.

They could barely build and operate helicopter carriers.

How on Earth do you expect Russia to have one especially on a budget not compiled by by geriatric commies with 8 years of elementary school? And I mean that as a compliment. Remember what killed USSR?

The only thing preventing us is lack of shipyards to build it.  We have the nuclear propulsion to run it and the fighters to fill it.  Developing a steam catapult is child's play.  If the funding had been devoted to it we would already have one with the second on the way.  The Soviet naval doctrine was having a fleet of nuclear subs and surface ships were only there to protect them.  It was a complete defence doctrine that is still being applied today but now it is centered on corvettes and very few submarines.  With the addition of cruise missiles we finally have a capability to project force from the sea but we don't have a naval doctrine that takes advantage of that.    

Russia is not USA, you are not flanked by two oceans and not bordered by two glorified provinces.

Having Coast Guard (FSB) patrol EEZ is a luxury that USA has but you don't, never had and never will.

Russia is closer to France, they have a blue water navy and a huge EEZ, bigger than ours actually.  We should have what they have times two.  

Corvettes is what you can build and more importantly what you need.

And even that is a stretch.

All this hassle with building corvettes and people want carriers?

It's like wanting to have a Lamborghini when you can barely pay for and build a tricycle. All the while living next to dirt road...

What is a corvette to a NATO carrier strike group?  Target practice...

No you couldn't.

Navy was swimming in cash until recently and all they managed to build were those hated corvettes.

No matter how much money you dump on carriers you will always be 3rd rate in that department, that is if you don't bankrupt yourselves (again) first.

And even if you build one (fat chance) what will you use it for? Fly airplanes around potential hostiles which are all within range of land based aviation?

More money down the latrine...

The capital expenditure maintaining the legacy fleet that should have been replaced with the state armaments plan is the cost of everything I stated, including the two carriers.  If the industrial policy had focused on one design per class, and spent the money perfecting that design with commonality, the shipyards would have been cranking out ships left and right.  The money down the latrine was keeping that old junk in service and not having commonality for new ships that should have had Russian designed engines from the start.

And yet we are in Venezuela, Syria, Vietnam... ect.  We must be able to keep the sea lanes open if war breaks out.

Why ? What are you selling to them apart some few sukhois and corvettes ?

For rebuilding Syria, Assad will go for Chinese companies.

Vietnam is totally forgeting Vietnam war and because of the fear of China, opening his arms to US. Just like indians.

Venezuela won't have a decent economy before 20 or 30 years. Just like Cuba is destroyed because of western sanctions since 50 years. Will be the same for Venezuela. China is doing nothing to stop that neither is russia.

US destroyed Ukraine and insted of taking the country back quickly and with no causualties like in Crimea, you keep the war in dombass and destroy this brother country even more and cry in Merkels arms for Minsk agreements.

You want carriers to play US game with no cards in hands.

Isos wrote:

Well this totally depends on what Russia plans to do in the next century. Having such navy means you want to invade countries.

Military speaking Russia doesn't even need a navy since they have 5000 nuks, neither an army. No one will dare to attack them (specially if the only weapons you have are your nuks).

Russia send 4 su-35 and 12 su-24 and 2 corvettes in Syria before NATO send anything and the world knew Assad was the winner the next day.

The thing is that with the 4 su-35, 12 su-24 and 2 corvettes they can still destroy the world. As long as this is true Russia won't need a huge navy.

But if you want to control Africa and some south american countries, then you need carriers and 24 Gorshkovs. But USA will always have more money and more military tools to make that almost impossible. Like in Venezuela for exemple.

What is the point of having a Navy if not to project your power whenever and wherever it is needed?  If we just want a littoral deterrence for US carriers we can do that with land based aviation.  It makes all of these overpriced corvettes redundant.  A quality MALE UAV fleet can provide maritime observation 24/7 and a much cheaper FSB fleet to enforce the EEZ.  If there is a heavily armed maritime threat you just bomb them out of existence.

Did those corvettes do anything to help Assad win?  No... it was a Slava cruiser that provided air cover to keep NATO at bay.  Now the Moskva is no longer serviceable.  

The USA will always have more, does that mean we should hide from them?

The USA will always have more, does that mean we should hide from them?

If you wait that they destroy all your "allies" before waking up then yes you should.

Did Syria paid anything for the war ? No
Did Vietnam paid anything for support during Vietnam war ? No
Did China paid for the copies of sukhois and everything else ? No
Does Iran pays anything for supporting them at UN ? Nope
Did Egypt pay for all Soviet support during wars with Israel ? No they even went to US. And now they buy 24 rafales for 5 billion and 50 migs for not even half the price.

US are not a bigger threat to you than China and the parasites that pretend to be your allies.

US is 1st because it controls its own parasites very well with their "military alliances". You should try that too. That's why smaller carrier with corvettes are enough, it keeps US away and you can destroy you allies if they try to fuck you. And most important make them pay for the carrier and the blue water navy. That's how it works. Even your LHD could have been paid by France and Egypt if you asked penalities from Paris and asked for a couple of billions more for the ka-52 by saying like the americans it is the best helicopter in the world. But you don't. Russians are passive.

Did those corvettes do anything to help Assad win?  No... it was a Slava cruiser that provided air cover to keep NATO at bay.  Now the Moskva is no longer serviceable.  

No it was Hmeimim air base. Slava is old and its S-300 are old ones with less than 100km range. Totally useless against stand off attacks from modern jets.

Isos wrote:By you I mean Russia. Don't take it personnaly

That's why I say it is good. It will just oblige your MIC to produce everything from now by themselve at good standards. If they don't ships will die at port so MOD will pressure them to finish.

First engines won't meet requirements but second generation will and then you will be totally independant.

It's a big investement thanks to US sanctions. If you were not sanctioned and not obliged to design your own engines, you will be still buying german and your domestic projects would be done slowly and probably be stoped before completetion.

Yes if you want a Big Navy you have to be able to produce it yourself not rely on others to do so, this goes for all the parts.

Otherwise, you are just asking for well a situation like that happened with Ukraine.


That said funding carriers right now would be a waste, no docks large enough for them, they are being built but not completed.

No Escorts, no anything Russia has a long way to do go before it can sit there and go "Okay NOW we can start to build the CV".

Trying to lay one down right now not that they can, would be a huge waste of money.


Also to say Corvettes are all Russia needs for a surface fleet, just no those corvettes will do jack shit in a naval fight, fighters alone will destroy every single one without much hassle and unless you concentrate a huge sum of them in one area they do not have enough weapons to really threaten anything like a destroyer.

If you cannot power project deep into the sea your foe will use that against you, why do you think Russia is having a hard time unless its right next to them they cannot provide the naval power they need for their interests, Russia wants carriers, it wants Missile Cruisers, it wants frigates but it's having a hard getting all of it. They want these things because they know they NEED them.

Does Russia need a blue water navy like frigates and a few carriers, yes they do. But they cannot afford that right now so they are just getting by with what they can get.

The USA will always have more, does that mean we should hide from them?

You spent last several decades trying to develop technology that makes carriers redundant and now that you finally cracked it you want to go back and build your own redundant carriers?

Just because you got there first doesn't mean USA won't catch up and make yours redundant as well (remember space race?)

And keep in mind that just one carrier with aircraft complement costs more than your entire surface and submarine Navy.

USA spends 2/3 of it's defense budget on Navy. There is a reason for that, Navy is crazy expensive.

And what trade lanes would you be protecting? Almost your entire trade goes via land.

If you really want to have Navy like France (seriously, you have some irrational infatuation with that place) all you have to do is to drop current warship design dogma and buld ships according to commercial standards just like French. Much simpler, cheaper and faster (just look at Bykov class)

France does have exactly same kind of Navy you are advocating: one carrier, several commercial grade frigates as escorts and some cheap chaff for padding. I doubt it would be enough to cover even Ohotsk.

PapaDragon wrote:
You spent last several decades trying to develop technology that makes carriers redundant and now that you finally cracked it you want to go back and build your own redundant carriers?

Just because you got there first doesn't mean USA won't catch up and make yours redundant as well (remember space race?)

And keep in mind that just one carrier with aircraft complement costs more than your entire surface and submarine Navy.

USA spends 2/3 of it's defense budget on Navy. There is a reason for that, Navy is crazy expensive.

And what trade lanes would you be protecting? Almost your entire trade goes via land.

If you really want to have Navy like France (seriously, you have some irrational infatuation with that place) all you have to do is to drop current warship design dogma and buld ships according to commercial standards just like French. Much simpler, cheaper and faster (just look at Bykov class)

France does have exactly same kind of Navy you are advocating: one carrier, several commercial grade frigates as escorts and some cheap chaff for padding. I doubt it would be enough to cover even Ohotsk.

60% of Russian international trade is carried by cargo ships. Over the past 10 years the amount of goods shipped by sea has doubled. If we can't ensure our trading lanes then the entire economy will come to a halt.

The US Navy gets 1/3rd of their budget and that includes the Marines. It isn't about matching the US that has carriers all over the world, it is about having a carrier that can defeat them at the place and time when it is needed before the nuclear watchdogs are called in to calm things down. That is the worst case, the regular case would be having a carrier that can conduct strikes to support our allies when needed and deterring the US from getting involved.

We need something like the French Navy times two. 2 CVNs, 8 AAW DDGs, 24 Gorshkovs, 6 LPH, 12 SSNs, 10 SSBNs. That is a solid first tier navy with plenty of projection power. We have already spent enough money to buy these things, but thanks to poor planning and wasted capital allocation on 40 year old rust buckets we have squat.

Isos wrote:

US are not a bigger threat to you than China and the parasites that pretend to be your allies.

If China is the biggest threat, which they are, how are we going to stop them without carrier strike groups? Have you looked at the PLAN lately?

US is 1st because it controls its own parasites very well with their "military alliances". You should try that too. That's why smaller carrier with corvettes are enough, it keeps US away and you can destroy you allies if they try to fuck you. And most important make them pay for the carrier and the blue water navy. That's how it works. Even your LHD could have been paid by France and Egypt if you asked penalities from Paris and asked for a couple of billions more for the ka-52 by saying like the americans it is the best helicopter in the world. But you don't. Russians are passive.

A smaller carrier and corvettes... how are the corvettes going to protect the carrier? If the carrier doesn't have CATOBAR what good is it anyway?

We got our money back from the Mistral deal, what it was spent on... more corvettes that don't have engines.

No it was Hmeimim air base. Slava is old and its S-300 are old ones with less than 100km range. Totally useless against stand off attacks from modern jets.

Hmeimim air base doesn't move, we needed a mobile air coverage that was provided by Moskva. And what missile do modern jets fire greater than 100km that can hit a moving target?

You need more than two carriers you need enough carrier you can rotate them for repair, upgrades and keeping some active 3 at the bare MIN is what russia in CV's