Russian Navy: Status & News #4

What does that have to do with what Moskva did in Syria? First it provided AAW coverage for the northern half of our forces, second it provided 16 "carrier-killing" missiles to keep NATO at bay, and lastly it made sure to keep Turkish air power on their side of the border.

Your nuks kept NATO at bay. Not 16 old missiles. Aster proved to be able to deal with mach 3 antiship missiles since long ago.

Coverage was made by s-400. Moskva couldn't do anything with 90km missiles. Only protects itself.

1 ship in the middle of Mediteraneab with all nato navies and airforces around her won't affraid anyone. Neither won't last in a battle more than 1/2 a day.

I'm not saying it is a bad ship.

None of our "stealth" ships are actually stealthy. There are far too many accouterments on it much less keeping up with the RAM coat before it rusts and peels. 12 redut doesn't equal 64 5V55RM. When you can buy two Gorshkovs for the price of four Steregushchiy, corvettes looks like a huge waste.

Well compare to a slava or a kirov they are stealth. RAM can be applied when tension appear.

Since we aren't getting any cruisers then that is the best we can get.

....

Your problem is you don't understand how much Steregushchiy costs, fully armed it is 10 billion RUB.

If a steregouchshy is too expensive, just forget the cruisers. They use the same weapons but in bigger number, they are bigger, they have much bigger and more powerfull radars, engines are much bigger. And the price too.

For the same price you will have either (randome numbers but should match the reality):

4 gorshkov or 2 supergorshkov or 12 steregouchshy.

I would chosse a mix anyday.

I don't know what you are arguing, of course Moskva is out of date and headed for scrap, but it is what we had. The ship we have worth buying are Gorshkovs.

I'm saying that a mixed force of some lighter ships with medium ships in bigger number is better than a force of only "some" big ships. Just like I think two smaller carriers is better than one big. UK think the same as they could have bought a nimitz to US directly for the same price as the two QE.

"Some" meaning that you can get much more smaller ships for one big ship but with same weapons.

With more ships you control more space. That's what russia needs as no one can't even attack you while you have a rusted navy.

If you need a supercarrier to defend Venezuela then send two smaller carrier. That's the same but with more flexibility and more survavibility than only one.

Numbers have always played a big role in military doctrines. Very big ships are expensive to buy and to maintain (just look at yours).

Isos wrote:
Your nuks kept NATO at bay. Not 16 old missiles. Aster proved to be able to deal with mach 3 antiship missiles since long ago.

Coverage was made by s-400. Moskva couldn't do anything with 90km missiles. Only protects itself.

1 ship in the middle of Mediteraneab with all nato navies and airforces around her won't affraid anyone. Neither won't last in a battle more than 1/2 a day.

I'm not saying it is a bad ship.

At the time, Turkey was not so friendly just having shot down one of our planes. Moskva was there to keep Turkey in check.  

S-400 did not have its 400km missile, it was just an S-300PMU2.  

It was more than enough to scare Turkey off.  

Well compare to a slava or a kirov they are stealth. RAM can be applied when tension appear..

Even a true stealth ship like a La Fayette still have the RCS of a fishing trawler.  They will be picked up but you want to ID them before you start shooting at ghosts.

If a steregouchshy is too expensive, just forget the cruisers. They use the same weapons but in bigger number, they are bigger, they have much bigger and more powerfull radars, engines are much bigger. And the price too.

For the same price you will have either (randome numbers but should match the reality):

4 gorshkov or 2 supergorshkov or 12 steregouchshy.

I would chosse a mix anyday.

The bigger the hull the bigger the cost savings per tonne.  The cost is in the sensors and weapon systems.  Putting high end weapons and sensors on a little ship that can't carry very much or go very far is not economical.  That is why we need more Gorshkovs and far fewer corvettes.      

I'm saying that a mixed force of some lighter ships with medium ships in bigger number is better than a force of only "some" big ships. Just like I think two smaller carriers is better than one big. UK think the same as they could have bought a nimitz to US directly for the same price as the two QE.

"Some" meaning that you can get much more smaller ships for one big ship but with same weapons.

With more ships you control more space. That's what russia needs as no one can't even attack you while you have a rusted navy.

If you need a supercarrier to defend Venezuela then send two smaller carrier. That's the same but with more flexibility and more survavibility than only one.

Numbers have always played a big role in military doctrines. Very big ships are expensive to buy and to maintain (just look at yours).

You get more bang for buck with Gorshkovs.  I care less about having hull numbers as opposed to actual combat capabilities of the ships.  Without a carrier they would still be formed up into a surface action group to protect one another.    Two Gorshkovs could handle themselves better than one frigate and three corvettes and still costs less money to build, operate and maintain.  Not to mention that is two blue water vessels opposed to one with three useless corvettes in open ocean.  

The space they control is based on the capabilities of the ships.  A Gorshkov can control more space than two corvettes of the same cost.  They have higher end radar, better sonars making their radius of control bigger than two smaller circles of control that would have gaps in them.  The Gorshkov can handle higher threat levels thanks to its larger VLS count.

As I was stating before, smaller doesn't mean cheaper.  Having a small carrier is not cheaper and the cost efficiency is in making the larger carrier with more carrying capability.  You would still have to put the same equipment on both hulls, and making a bigger hull is not the expensive part.  

Cost efficiency and logistics are what enables a military to operate.  If you can't afford to operate it then it sits rusting away.

Vladimir79 wrote:

You get more bang for buck with Gorshkovs.  I care less about having hull numbers as opposed to actual combat capabilities of the ships.  Without a carrier they would still be formed up into a surface action group to protect one another.    Two Gorshkovs could handle themselves better than one frigate and three corvettes and still costs less money to build, operate and maintain.  Not to mention that is two blue water vessels opposed to one with three useless corvettes in open ocean.  

The space they control is based on the capabilities of the ships.  A Gorshkov can control more space than two corvettes of the same cost.  They have higher end radar, better sonars making their radius of control bigger than two smaller circles of control that would have gaps in them.  The Gorshkov can handle higher threat levels thanks to its larger VLS count.

As I was stating before, smaller doesn't mean cheaper.  Having a small carrier is not cheaper and the cost efficiency is in making the larger carrier with more carrying capability.  You would still have to put the same equipment on both hulls, and making a bigger hull is not the expensive part.  

Cost efficiency and logistics are what enables a military to operate.  If you can't afford to operate it then it sits rusting away.

Why compare 3 Steregs to 1 Gorshkovs? You forget that Grishas, Parchims and Neustrashimy need  replacements. Karakurts and Buyans cant be that as they are helpless against submarines.
Steregs and Grems are supposed to be mulitirole but primarily anti-sub  ships near the shores basically replacements for the large numbers of Soviet legacy corvettes.
What corvette you should be comparing 1 Gorshkov to is 2 or 3 Derzkys.
I think these 2 have the same rangeand endurance iirc. Derzks are supposed to be a compromise between true frigates and true corvettes. A ship that is primarily near shore missions while having the ability to join missions on the high seas. Steregs travelled to the English channel to the Med and then to the Gulf not because it's supposed to but because it was forced to. Derzky should do that just fine.


Russia still needs to prioritize subs,frigates and corvettes. Blue waters can wait till 2030s. You need at least 2-3 carriers (1 operational while one in maintenance). Thats 2-3 super carriers, ugh.

Your nuks kept NATO at bay. Not 16 old missiles. Aster proved to be able to deal with mach 3 antiship missiles since long ago.

Hahaha... yeah... funny thing isn't it... the Mach 3 SR-71 was safe and invincible, but mach 2.5 anti ship missiles are easy targets...

Coverage was made by s-400. Moskva couldn't do anything with 90km missiles. Only protects itself.

That is a circle 180kms across...

And that is how IADS work... each node adds depth, information, and capability to the whole.

I'm not saying it is a bad ship.

She might not last a day, but how many NATO ships and towns will she take with her?

If you need a supercarrier to defend Venezuela then send two smaller carrier. That's the same but with more flexibility and more survavibility than only one.

Bigger ships are more survivable... no big ship is invincible, but smaller ships are easier to destroy than a bigger ship even if they have the same weapons... simply having bigger sensors on the bigger ship makes it better able to use its weapons than the smaller ship...

BTW look forward to you using the same argument in other threads regarding MiG-35s being smaller and cheaper than Su-35s so they can have more of them that will offer better coverage and they use the same weapons so performance of two MiG-35s and one Su-35 is the same... right?

Numbers have always played a big role in military doctrines. Very big ships are expensive to buy and to maintain (just look at yours).

How many corvettes does the US use in the Middle East?

The space they control is based on the capabilities of the ships. A Gorshkov can control more space than two corvettes of the same cost. They have higher end radar, better sonars making their radius of control bigger than two smaller circles of control that would have gaps in them. The Gorshkov can handle higher threat levels thanks to its larger VLS count.

Corvettes can perform the roles of Frigates and destroyers inside and near Russian waters, but if you want to move beyond Russian waters and trade globally you need bigger ships with more endurance and more weapons to support operations for longer periods and of course bigger better sensors.

If things go to plan they will have AWACS support so air coverage will be handled by other platforms, but AWACS is not 24/7... sometimes they have to land or rotate them, meaning gaps in coverage... but other aircraft like fighters in the air can also detect low flying threats... or helicopters for that matter.

The Russian Navy of the future wont be huge but will need some big ships to make it a global force... opening up the North Sea Route means transits from teh Northern Fleet to the Pacific fleet will become routine, so access down through into the pacific and atlantic will become normal and easy.

If Russia has a Moskva class ship in the Med and it is threatened by NATO forces then subs and air launched missiles like Kinzhal can support its defensive retreat back to safer waters... it might make it or it might not... if it does not then I would expect WWIII has just started so it does not really matter for the region...

Russia still needs to prioritize subs,frigates and corvettes. Blue waters can wait till 2030s. You need at least 2-3 carriers (1 operational while one in maintenance). Thats 2-3 super carriers, ugh.

The critical thing is that Russia wants multirole ships and it is much easier to make a bigger ship Effectively multirole than a smaller ship.

With smaller ships you can group them together in groups of 4 or more and they become effective in a range of roles, while a much bigger ships can be effective in a range of roles on its own... with its capability expanded as you add more ships of any size... bigger ships are better, but small ships are useful too... some roles don't need a big ship so having small ships frees up the bigger ships for tasks that require more capability.

Seals being trained for submarine operations.

https://mobile.twitter.com/Capt_Navy/status/1122872896915947521

George1 wrote:

Isos wrote:Seals being trained for submarine operations.    

https://mobile.twitter.com/Capt_Navy/status/1122872896915947521

i know that in USSR dolphins were trained to destroy ships

Belugas and seals too. But I think it was mostly for finding subs and mines, not for destroying anything. I doubt they can make a difference btw russian or nato subs.

Surprise visit to Istanbul by Admiral Essen, today

It is for an military exposition. Get some orders from Arab state would be nice for them. The market is huge as most of gulf states have rather small navies and Grigorovitch provides Klub missiles with 300km range that could be interesting for them.

Gorshkov should have participated too or made visits during her trip.

George1 wrote:

Isos wrote:Seals being trained for submarine operations.    

https://mobile.twitter.com/Capt_Navy/status/1122872896915947521

i know that in USSR dolphins were trained to destroy ships

Dolphins were trained in anti-saboteur roles, to find mines, recover objects from water and similar.

Well they have small shipyards that can't make anything bigger than a corvette, so it they do make a few it is not the end of the world... in many ways their current corvette designs have the fire power of cold war destroyers... remember Krivak class Frigates had quad launchers for missiles on the front and 100mm calibre guns... destroyers like Sovremmeny and Udaloy had 8 ready to fire main missiles and 100mm and 130mm guns, so a corvette with a single UKSK launch system can carry the equivalent main missile load to either destroyer and twice the load of the Krivak class frigate... more importantly that load of 8 missiles is much more flexible... it can carry any combination of anti ship, anti sub, and land attack missiles, and the new weapons are significantly more powerful and effective... Onyx is much faster and much longer ranged than Moskit on the Sovs, and the 91RE1 is much faster and more effective than the SS-N-14 of the Udaloy and Krivak... and the 2,500km range calibr has no cold war equivalent... and pretty soon 4,500km range land attack missiles, and 1,000km plus range mach 9 Zircon missiles are going to be an option...

But Corvettes lack range and capacity to operate for long periods or sustained combat anywhere except close to base with reloads... new frigates and destroyers will expand this improvement in performance and capability to the point where perhaps cruisers as such are not even needed... 20K ton destroyers with nuke propulsion and massive weapon capacity makes them almost arsenal ships on their own...

It is for an military exposition. Get some orders from Arab state would be nice for them. The market is huge as most of gulf states have rather small navies and Grigorovitch provides Klub missiles with 300km range that could be interesting for them.

Gorshkov should have participated too or made visits during her trip.

And here comes another Gorshkov's visit, thist time to Vladivostok. To remain here till Victory Day Parade, than it will move on. Some crazy Balancer guys betting on krugosvetka across Pacific